Guantanamo suicides confirmed

I am very much afraid that Mr. Hinteler is not aware that the United States Supreme Court has rule on Gitmo. They ruled that the President of the United States has the power and ability to hold the prisoners at Gitmo but that he must take steps to give them trials under the Geneva Convention Rules.

At this time, the President and his staff are consulting with the Congress as to just how trials can be set up which will not result in media circuses but will meet the demands of the USSC , which, of course, under the rule of law, must be met.

The USSC decision left room for the President to work out a plan with the Congress to adopt trial procedures which will conform with the USSC guidelines. IN THE MEANTIME, GITMO IS NOT CLOSING!!!!

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

I am very much afraid that Mr. Hinteler is not aware that the United States Supreme Court has rule on Gitmo.

How do you know that?
And more important: what has your response to do with with the text I copied/pasted and with the memo by Barry R McCaffrey General, USA (Ret.) Adjunct Professor of International Affairs United States Military Academy?

0 Replies

Mr. Walter Hinteler--You ask "How do you know that?"

Here is how I know that--

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

Congress ready to set law for Guantanamo tribunals: senators Sun Jul 2, 4:58 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Congress is ready to craft legislation to prosecute Guantanamo war-on-terror prisoners after the government's plan for military trials was rejected by the Supreme Court, top senators said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told the Fox News Sunday television program that Congress could conceivably pass a new law allowing the government to try the prisoners by military commissions by September.

"The court is telling the administration go back to the Congress, work with the Congress," Graham said.

"I intend to sit down with the administration ... to come up with a process that holds terrorists accountable, to give them a fair trial, but to make sure that if they did do the things that we're alleging, they're fairly punished," he said.

"Every enemy prisoner, terrorist, is entitled to be tried in a military commission format, not civilian format."

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the administration of President George W. Bush had no authority under US laws and the Geneva Conventions to set up military tribunals without the backing of Congress to try detainees held at a US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The ruling cast doubt on Bush's robust assertion of presidential power for national security purposes since the September 11, 2001 attacks, and bolstered Congressional claims that they have the power to regulate White House-directed programs from the handling of detainees to conducting secret surveillance on US citizens.

But Democratic Senator Jack Reed told Fox News that the minority Democrats are likely to cooperate with Republicans and the White House to pass the legislation enabling detainee trials.

"This has to be a process where we understand and recognize that we have to have a legitimate procedure -- legitimate in the eyes of the court, legitimate in the eyes of the American people, that we can move quickly to try these individuals and do justice," Reed said.

"And I think that's something that will come together in a bipartisan basis, I hope, in a deliberate and quick fashion, and do that."

Graham, himself a former military prosecutor, said that Congress holds the power to establish military tribunals.

"The court is saying to the president, 'you can have a military commission, but since it comes from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a congressional statute, you've got to go back to Congress'."

Republican Senator John McCain said on ABC television's "This Week" program that new legislation for Guantanamo trials would likely fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military legal system.

"I think that it shouldn't be exactly the same as applied to a member of the military, but it's a good framework. And I don't think that the Supreme Court said it had to be exact."

But Graham said he disagreed with the court's "breathtaking" ruling that Guantanamo prisoners had to be treated fairly based on Article III of the Geneva Conventions, holding that stateless fighters like members of Al-Qaeda don't deserve Geneva protections.

"The question for this country is, should Al-Qaeda members who do not sign up to the Geneva Convention, who show disdain for it, who butcher our troops, be given the protections of a treaty they're not part of?" he said.

"My opinion, no. They should be humanely treated, but the Geneva Convention cannot be used in the war on terrorists to give the terrorists an opportunity to basically come at us hard without any restrictions on how we interrogate and prosecute," Graham argued

**********************************************************

As the article says, Congress and the President will pass legislation enabling detainee trials and, as I mentioned previously--The Prisoners will stay at Gitmo until those trials are set up and perhaps longer.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

I am very much afraid that Mr. Hinteler is not aware that the United States Supreme Court has rule on Gitmo. They ruled that the President of the United States has the power and ability to hold the prisoners at Gitmo but that he must take steps to give them trials under the Geneva Convention Rules.

At this time, the President and his staff are consulting with the Congress as to just how trials can be set up which will not result in media circuses but will meet the demands of the USSC , which, of course, under the rule of law, must be met.

The USSC decision left room for the President to work out a plan with the Congress to adopt trial procedures which will conform with the USSC guidelines. IN THE MEANTIME, GITMO IS NOT CLOSING!!!!

US renounces world court treaty

Critics say existing tribunals' powers must be extended

The United States has withdrawn from a treaty to establish an International Criminal Court (ICC), provoking outrage from human rights organisations.

Unsigning the treaty will throw the United States into opposition against the most important new institution for enforcing human rights in 50 years

Kenneth Roth
Human Rights Watch
In a letter to the United Nations delivered on Monday, the US says it will not consider itself bound by the treaty - even though Bill Clinton signed up to it in 2000.

The US has vehemently opposed the setting up of the ICC, fearing its soldiers and diplomats could be brought before the court which will hear cases of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Washington Working Group on the ICC - an umbrella group of organisations supporting the court - said withdrawing from the treaty was a "rash action signalling to the world that America is turning its back on decades of US leadership in prosecuting war criminals since the Nuremberg trials."

US 'undermined'

Judge Richard Goldstone, the first chief prosecutor at The Hague war crimes tribunal on the former Yugoslavia, echoed these sentiments saying:

"I think it is a very backwards step. It is unprecedented which I think to an extent smacks of pettiness in the sense that it is not going to affect in any way the establishment of the international criminal court".

"The US have really isolated themselves and are putting themselves into bed with the likes of China, the Yemen and other undemocratic countries," he added.

US senior diplomat Pierre-Richard Prosper said the letter "neutralised" Mr Clinton's signature on the treaty.

The ICC
Comes into being on July 1 and begins work early next year
Will be based in The Hague
66 nations have ratified the treaty
Nearly 100 nations have signed up and may ratify the treaty in the future
China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Iraq and Turkey have failed to sign up to the treaty
Egypt, Iran, Israel and Russia have failed to ratify the treaty
"It frees us from some of the obligations that are incurred by signature. When you sign you have an obligation not to take actions that would defeat the object or purpose of the treaty," he said.

By unsigning the treaty, the US would no longer have to extradite people wanted by the court, he said.

"What we've learnt from the war on terror is that rather than creating an international mechanism to deal with these issues it is better to organise an international mandate that authorises states to use their unilateral tools to tackle the problems we have," Mr Prosper said.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell, announcing the decision on Sunday, said the court would undermine US judicial authority.

He said it would be accountable to no higher authority - including the UN Security Council - and would be able "to second-guess the United States after we have tried somebody".

'Wrong side of history'

For President George W Bush's critics, this decision serves as further proof of a unilateralist approach to foreign policy and puts him at odds with allies, including Canada and the European Union, which support the ICC.

"The administration is putting itself on the wrong side of history," said Kenneth Roth, director of Human Rights Watch.

"Unsigning the treaty will not stop the court. It will only throw the United States into opposition against the most important new institution for enforcing human rights in 50 years," he said.

The court itself still has enough international support to begin work in The Hague next year - but without US backing, correspondents say it will be a far less powerful and effective player on the world stage.
********************
The U.S. enters the Dark Ages..............

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

BernardR wrote:
I am very much afraid that Mr. Hinteler is not aware that the United States Supreme Court has rule on Gitmo.

You know by posting an article what I'm aware or not Shocked

Are you above God now Shocked

BernardR wrote:

Mr. Walter Hinteler--You ask "How do you know that?"

Here is how I know that--

[...]

But on the other hand, you know nothing about what Barry R McCaffrey General, USA (Ret.) Adjunct Professor of International Affairs United States Military Academy, wrote. Correct?

0 Replies

I am very sorry, Mr. Hinteler, but I must take the findings of the United States Supreme Court as being far far far more important than the opinions of an ex-American general.

The Judgement of the US Supreme Court, as you may be aware, have the force of law.

Retired General McCafferey's opinions may be interesting but they have absolutely no sway in how the US government is run.

0 Replies

None of above answers my questions.

So I guess, you really are above God.

0 Replies

When I read the post from Mr. Pachelbel, I was "Shocked" "Shocked"!!!

The US has not signed the treaty establishing the INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS?

How can this be?

There is only one solution. This problem must be referred to the UN IMMEDIATELY SO THAT SANCTIONS CAN BE PLACED ON THE USA.

I would wait until Mr. Annan is replaced( It will happen soon) by another leader. I am very much afraid that Mr. Annan has lost all credibility after the Oil for Food scandals. Perhaps the UN will name some one with impeccable credentials from countries who have not trampled HUMAN RIGHTS in the dust as the US has done. Someone from Cuba or China or perhaps Uganda? You know--countries who have never been found to be INHUMAN like the US.

I am very much afraid that Mr.Pachelbel will have to contain his justifiable anger. That darned veto power keeps getting in the way.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:
"Arrogance, secrecy, and bad judgment have mired us in a mess in
Guantanamo from which we are having great difficulty in extricating
ourselves," wrote U.S. Army Gen. (Ret.) Barry R. McCaffrey in a report
on his recent trip to the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay.

"The JTF Guantanamo Detention Center is the most professional, firm,
humane and carefully supervised confinement operation that I have
ever personally observed," he stated.

At the same time, "Much of the international community views the
Guantanamo Detention Center as a place of shame and routine violation
of human rights. This view is not correct. However, there will be no
possibility of correcting that view."

"There is now no possible political support for Guantanamo going
forward," Gen. McCaffrey wrote.

I have trouble understanding this on a couple levels.

One, why does he think that we need foreign political support in order to run Guantanamo? It seems like we are capable of running it without any foreign help.

Two, why do foreign governments insist on denying us our longstanding right to hold captured enemy fighters until the end of the war?

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:
But even if that is so, he wrote, "It may be cheaper and cleaner to kill them in combat then sit on them for the next 15 years."

In other words, we will deny all quarter to our enemies.

I guess that is our right in a world where we are not allowed to hold captured enemy fighters until the end of the war.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Republican Senator John McCain said on ABC television's "This Week" program that new legislation for Guantanamo trials would likely fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military legal system.

McCain is being silly. If the tribunals are to fall under the same rules as courts martial, there is no need for Congressional authorization.

Congressional authorization is only needed if they want to change the rules to allow things like secret evidence.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

I have trouble understanding this on a couple levels. ... ...

Quote:

Much of the international community views the Guantanamo Detention Center as a place of shame and routine violation of human rights. This view is not correct. However, there will be no possibility of correcting that view. Almost without exception the international community has called for its closure. President Bush has acknowledged their concerns and publicly stated that he also wants Guantanamo closed. There is now no possible political support for Guantanamo going forward.

I don't read this as if the US needed foreign political support in order to run Guantanamo - it clearly points out the political support.

Your point two is 'answered' in the source as well, I think.

I wonder about your "In other words, we will deny ...": in his "9. THE WAY AHEAD" it's all reported.

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I don't read this as if the US needed foreign political support in order to run Guantanamo - it clearly points out the political support.

I thought he was saying that it will have to be closed because there was no foreign political support for keeping it open.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Your point two is 'answered' in the source as well, I think.

They want to deny our right to hold captured enemy fighters because they insist on believing that we are torturing them??

Walter Hinteler wrote:

I wonder about your "In other words, we will deny ...": in his "9. THE WAY AHEAD" it's all reported.

It looks to me like he is saying that we will have to release enemy fighters and then when they return to the battlefield, make sure we don't capture them alive.

0 Replies

pachelbel wrote:

See if you can follow this article:
. . . .
Get a clue, clueless.

Do you wonder why I seldom take your posts seriously?

pachelbel wrote:

President Bush recently lashed out against reporters for divulging a secret government program that monitors international banking transactions. He called such newspaper revelations "disgraceful" acts that help terrorists.

I think we need new laws that allow such papers to be forcibly closed down for the duration of a war.

0 Replies

oralloy wrote:

I think we need new laws that allow such papers to be forcibly closed down for the duration of a war.

I've even difficulties with such during a war .... but when the USA officially declare war to what country?

Same for war on drugs as well?

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

oralloy wrote:

I think we need new laws that allow such papers to be forcibly closed down for the duration of a war.

I've even difficulties with such during a war .... but when the USA officially declare war to what country?

Same for war on drugs as well?

oralloy doesn't believe in freedom of the press and freedom of speech, apparently. oralloy should read "1984" because that's his world.
People like you believe in building walls to keep other people out. Rolling Eyes

that's so passe. During times of war or so-called war such as the debacle in Iraq, the public has every right to know what is going on. You're fighting for freedom, or some such thing? But you're losing your freedoms at home. Go figure.

0 Replies

pachelbel wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:
oralloy wrote:

I think we need new laws that allow such papers to be forcibly closed down for the duration of a war.

I've even difficulties with such during a war .... but when the USA officially declare war to what country?

Same for war on drugs as well?

oralloy doesn't believe in freedom of the press and freedom of speech, apparently. oralloy should read "1984" because that's his world.
People like you believe in building walls to keep other people out. that's so passe. During times of war or so-called war such as the debacle in Iraq, the public has every right to know what is going on. You're fighting for freedom, or some such thing? But you're losing your freedoms at home. Go figure.

But does the public have the right to know operational and specific plans?

Does the public have the right to know exactly when and where and with how many troops an attack is planned?
Do you believe that the press had the right to publish the plans for D-Day on may 30 if they had known them?

Even you are smart enough to realize that there are some things that should not be made public,for security or safety reasons.

Of course,using your own words...

Quote:

During times of war or so-called war such as the debacle in Iraq, the public has every right to know what is going on.

Then you have no reason to ever say anything about the Valerie Plame case.
After all,the public has a right to know.

0 Replies

oralloy--If Mr. Walter Hinteler and Mr. Pachelbel would take time to read the following they MIGHT be able to understand the IMPORTANCE of the ruling made by the US SUPREME COURT just a week or so ago.

Since we operate under the rule of law, this ruling is definitive:

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

Congress ready to set law for Guantanamo tribunals: senators Sun Jul 2, 4:58 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Congress is ready to craft legislation to prosecute Guantanamo war-on-terror prisoners after the government's plan for military trials was rejected by the Supreme Court, top senators said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told the Fox News Sunday television program that Congress could conceivably pass a new law allowing the government to try the prisoners by military commissions by September.

"The court is telling the administration go back to the Congress, work with the Congress," Graham said.

"I intend to sit down with the administration ... to come up with a process that holds terrorists accountable, to give them a fair trial, but to make sure that if they did do the things that we're alleging, they're fairly punished," he said.

"Every enemy prisoner, terrorist, is entitled to be tried in a military commission format, not civilian format."

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the administration of President George W. Bush had no authority under US laws and the Geneva Conventions to set up military tribunals without the backing of Congress to try detainees held at a US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The ruling cast doubt on Bush's robust assertion of presidential power for national security purposes since the September 11, 2001 attacks, and bolstered Congressional claims that they have the power to regulate White House-directed programs from the handling of detainees to conducting secret surveillance on US citizens.

But Democratic Senator Jack Reed told Fox News that the minority Democrats are likely to cooperate with Republicans and the White House to pass the legislation enabling detainee trials.

"This has to be a process where we understand and recognize that we have to have a legitimate procedure -- legitimate in the eyes of the court, legitimate in the eyes of the American people, that we can move quickly to try these individuals and do justice," Reed said.

"And I think that's something that will come together in a bipartisan basis, I hope, in a deliberate and quick fashion, and do that."

Graham, himself a former military prosecutor, said that Congress holds the power to establish military tribunals.

"The court is saying to the president, 'you can have a military commission, but since it comes from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a congressional statute, you've got to go back to Congress'."

Republican Senator John McCain said on ABC television's "This Week" program that new legislation for Guantanamo trials would likely fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military legal system.

"I think that it shouldn't be exactly the same as applied to a member of the military, but it's a good framework. And I don't think that the Supreme Court said it had to be exact."

But Graham said he disagreed with the court's "breathtaking" ruling that Guantanamo prisoners had to be treated fairly based on Article III of the Geneva Conventions, holding that stateless fighters like members of Al-Qaeda don't deserve Geneva protections.

"The question for this country is, should Al-Qaeda members who do not sign up to the Geneva Convention, who show disdain for it, who butcher our troops, be given the protections of a treaty they're not part of?" he said.

"My opinion, no. They should be humanely treated, but the Geneva Convention cannot be used in the war on terrorists to give the terrorists an opportunity to basically come at us hard without any restrictions on how we interrogate and prosecute," Graham argued

**********************************************************

As the article says, Congress and the President will pass legislation enabling detainee trials and, as I mentioned previously--The Prisoners will stay at Gitmo until those trials are set up and perhaps longer.

IF MR. WALTER HINTELER AND MR. PACHELBEL ACTUALLY READ THE NEWS STORY ABOVE THEY WILL FIND THAT THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PRESIDENT WILL COOPERATE IN PASSING NEW LAWS TO ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO SET UP MILITARY COMMISSIONS TO TRY THE PRISONERS BY SEPTEMBER 2006.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

pachelbel wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
oralloy wrote:

I think we need new laws that allow such papers to be forcibly closed down for the duration of a war.

I've even difficulties with such during a war .... but when the USA officially declare war to what country?

Same for war on drugs as well?

oralloy doesn't believe in freedom of the press and freedom of speech, apparently. oralloy should read "1984" because that's his world.
People like you believe in building walls to keep other people out. that's so passe. During times of war or so-called war such as the debacle in Iraq, the public has every right to know what is going on. You're fighting for freedom, or some such thing? But you're losing your freedoms at home. Go figure.

But does the public have the right to know operational and specific plans?

Does the public have the right to know exactly when and where and with how many troops an attack is planned?
Do you believe that the press had the right to publish the plans for D-Day on may 30 if they had known them?

Even you are smart enough to realize that there are some things that should not be made public,for security or safety reasons.

Of course,using your own words...

Quote:
During times of war or so-called war such as the debacle in Iraq, the public has every right to know what is going on.

Then you have no reason to ever say anything about the Valerie Plame case.
After all,the public has a right to know.

Maybe you're smart enough to get the gist of this, but I doubt it.

Another hype come-on by Cheney. He's been against the New York Times for a couple of weeks - so it's 'attack the liberal press'. The press is FINALLY doing it's job. What are you, a Nazi? No freedom of speech or of the press?

Tell me how they have compromised anything or anyone by disclosing the name of the company? Be specific.

They disclosed the name (SWIFT) of the company that tracks financial transactions of just about everyone. So what? How does that affect tracking (ohhh - the scary word - 'terrorist' - transactions?) Can you tell me that? They did not list possible terrorist names or locations. If you go online, you will not find out anything about Swift, except possible hiring positions and where their offices are located. So the hell what?

Compromising the LIFE of a CIA agent is TREASON, which Cheney, the slimy bastard, is guilty of. He's good at red herrings though, and I see you've all caught some in your fishing net. It made you forget what HE did, didn't it?

It's that propaganda thing again........the spin docs at work. And they are good at it. Keep suckin' it up, suckers.

0 Replies

I am very much afraid that Mr. Pachelbel is unable to rebut the facts below. I am posting it to say that it stands Unrebutted:
Congress ready to set law for Guantanamo tribunals: senators Sun Jul 2, 4:58 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Congress is ready to craft legislation to prosecute Guantanamo war-on-terror prisoners after the government's plan for military trials was rejected by the Supreme Court, top senators said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham told the Fox News Sunday television program that Congress could conceivably pass a new law allowing the government to try the prisoners by military commissions by September.

"The court is telling the administration go back to the Congress, work with the Congress," Graham said.

"I intend to sit down with the administration ... to come up with a process that holds terrorists accountable, to give them a fair trial, but to make sure that if they did do the things that we're alleging, they're fairly punished," he said.

"Every enemy prisoner, terrorist, is entitled to be tried in a military commission format, not civilian format."

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the administration of President George W. Bush had no authority under US laws and the Geneva Conventions to set up military tribunals without the backing of Congress to try detainees held at a US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The ruling cast doubt on Bush's robust assertion of presidential power for national security purposes since the September 11, 2001 attacks, and bolstered Congressional claims that they have the power to regulate White House-directed programs from the handling of detainees to conducting secret surveillance on US citizens.

But Democratic Senator Jack Reed told Fox News that the minority Democrats are likely to cooperate with Republicans and the White House to pass the legislation enabling detainee trials.

"This has to be a process where we understand and recognize that we have to have a legitimate procedure -- legitimate in the eyes of the court, legitimate in the eyes of the American people, that we can move quickly to try these individuals and do justice," Reed said.

"And I think that's something that will come together in a bipartisan basis, I hope, in a deliberate and quick fashion, and do that."

Graham, himself a former military prosecutor, said that Congress holds the power to establish military tribunals.

"The court is saying to the president, 'you can have a military commission, but since it comes from the Uniform Code of Military Justice, a congressional statute, you've got to go back to Congress'."

Republican Senator John McCain said on ABC television's "This Week" program that new legislation for Guantanamo trials would likely fall under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military legal system.

"I think that it shouldn't be exactly the same as applied to a member of the military, but it's a good framework. And I don't think that the Supreme Court said it had to be exact."

But Graham said he disagreed with the court's "breathtaking" ruling that Guantanamo prisoners had to be treated fairly based on Article III of the Geneva Conventions, holding that stateless fighters like members of Al-Qaeda don't deserve Geneva protections.

"The question for this country is, should Al-Qaeda members who do not sign up to the Geneva Convention, who show disdain for it, who butcher our troops, be given the protections of a treaty they're not part of?" he said.

"My opinion, no. They should be humanely treated, but the Geneva Convention cannot be used in the war on terrorists to give the terrorists an opportunity to basically come at us hard without any restrictions on how we interrogate and prosecute," Graham argued

**********************************************************

As the article says, Congress and the President will pass legislation enabling detainee trials and, as I mentioned previously--The Prisoners will stay at Gitmo until those trials are set up and perhaps longer.

IF MR. PACHELBEL ACTUALLY READ THE NEWS STORY ABOVE THEY WILL FIND THAT THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE PRESIDENT WILL COOPERATE IN PASSING NEW LAWS TO ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO SET UP MILITARY COMMISSIONS TO TRY THE PRISONERS BY SEPTEMBER 2006.

*************************************************************
now, to meet Mr. Pachelbel's ridiculous comments about COMPROMISING THE LIFE OF A CIA AGENT. There has been no COMPROMISING of a life of a CIA agent. I am sure that Mr. Pachelbel can not present any evidence to show that Vice President Cheney has COMPROMISED THE LIFE OF A CIA AGENT.

If he can, I would like to see the evidence. If not, I hope that he has the integrity to admit that he made an egregious error!

0 Replies

From today's Chicago Tribune (section 2, page 1-2):

Quote:

By David Scheffer

With its 5-3 vote in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, the U.S. Supreme Court shut down the ill-conceived military commissions at Guantanamo.

Now the question is how does Washington fix the problem of bringing alleged terrorists to justice and detaining those too dangerous to release?

The commissions had been set up by military order of President Bush in November 2001 and were the administration's alternative to either courts-martial or federal criminal trials, both of which the government sought to avoid.

The court found, though, that military commissions violated U.S. and international law, saying that they lacked any authorization from Congress and deprived defendants of fundamental due process rights.

Essentially, the court held that the "Rule of Law," words Justice John Paul Stevens capitalized in his majority opinion, must govern how the Bush administration conducts the war on terror.

In this case "Rule of Law" means adhering to the constitutional separation of powers--no presidential blank check--and to the laws, including those of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which regulate criminal prosecutions.

Immediately after the court's decision, Bush and members of Congress scrambled to find a face-saving legislative fix that would overcome the illegal procedures of the military commissions.

That could be a futile endeavor.

By the time all the illegalities of the commissions are addressed, the result probably will appear very much like courts-martial anyway. The court said as much: "Nothing in the record before us demonstrates that it would be impracticable to apply court-martial rules in this case," Stevens wrote.

With that in mind, the president and Congress should focus on rewriting the Bush administration's flawed judicial and detention policies in the war on terror.

It never made sense to combine the law of war with anti-terrorism law. Administration officials claim they are waging a war on terror and bringing terrorists to "justice," but they remain confused about when and how to enforce the law of war against combatants and when and how to detain and prosecute individuals as terrorists.

They have sought to remake these two fields of law into a single mishmash of legal memorandums and presidential directives that make no sense to lawyers--including U.S. military lawyers--or to the Supreme Court justices knowledgeable in both federal and international law.

Only 10 of the hundreds of alleged terrorists being detained at Guantanamo were being prosecuted, and no proceeding had progressed much.

How to salvage Rule of Law

Salvaging the Rule of Law will be tough, but it is doable.

First, we must shut down Guantanamo as a detention center of "unlawful enemy combatants" that has created so much controversy globally.

Then we can reopen it--without its degrading attributes--as a bona fide prisoner of war camp that is fully compliant with the Third Geneva Convention and inspected thoroughly by Congress, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Better yet, shut down Guantanamo altogether and build a POW camp on U.S. soil. If this indeed is a war on terror, then U.S. officials must treat it like a war and comply with the law of war.

Second, we should send back to their home countries or, if they face likely abuse there, to nations that do not endorse torture, detainees who are not legally classified as prisoners of war or no longer pose a threat.

If there is no realistic destination yet for such a detainee, then we must establish a secure location in the U.S. where they can live comfortably and work or study until they ultimately can be sent overseas.

... ... ...

continued and full online report

0 Replies

Guantanamo suicides confirmed

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know