Guantanamo suicides confirmed

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.

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?

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?

We declared war just after 9/11. It was not against a country, but against al-Qa'ida and all their allies.

The war on drugs is more of an unconstitutional bit of police work.

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

It makes no sense to declare a war and then pretend that POWs don't exist.

To talk about the Geneva Convention and not adhere to it.

Who decides when this 'war' is over?

It could go on for a hundred years.

I was not talking about the right to set up military tribunals. Obviously Mr. Bush does not have that right; now he and his idiots must find a way to give them a fair trial.

oralloy 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?

We declared war just after 9/11. It was not against a country, but against al-Qa'ida and all their allies.

The war on drugs is more of an unconstitutional bit of police work.

Was this part of that simplistic "If you ain't with us then your agin us" attitude that Bush decided to adopt.

How do you tell if someone is an ally of al Qaida?

No, the declaration of war was something that came from Congress.

Taking reporters' questions, Fitzgerald declined to discuss his findings on the broader questions. He noted the complexity of federal laws prohibiting the outing of covert officers and said Libby prevented a full assessment because of his allegedly misleading statements. He likened Libby's actions to throwing sand in an umpire's eyes.

The Pentagon has decided in a major policy shift that all detainees held in US military custody around the world are entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions, according to two people familiar with the move.

The FT has learned that Gordon England, deputy defence secretary, sent a memo to senior defence officials and military officers last Friday, telling them that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions - which prohibits inhumane treatment of prisoners and requires certain basic legal rights at trial - would apply to all detainees held in US military custody.


ADVERTISEMENT
This reverses the policy outlined by President George W. Bush in 2002 when he decided members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban did not qualify for Geneva protections because the war on terrorism had ushered in a "new paradigm…[that] requires new thinking in the law of war".

The policy U-turn comes on the heels of the Supreme Court ruling last month that the military commissions Mr Bush created to try prisoners at Guantanamo Bay contravened both US law and the Geneva Conventions.

The White House had argued that Mr Bush, as commander-in-chief, had the authority to convene the military commissions. Critics who rejected this interpretation said the commissions were unjust because, for instance, defendants were unable to see all the evidence levelled against them.

In a stunning rebuke of Mr Bush, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 that his administration had overshot its authority in constituting the controversial commissions, concluding that they did not offer defendants sufficient legal rights.

The court also suggested that the administration work with Congress to reach a solution that would address the problems, including the introduction of evidence.

Arlen Specter, the Republican chairman of the Senate judiciary committee, is scheduled on Tuesday to kick off a series of Congressional hearings that will examine the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan - the former driver of Osama bin Laden who became the first detainee brought before a military commission - and its implications for dealing with the 450 detainees remaining at the Guantanamo.

In the wake of the Supreme Court decision, legal experts had disagreed about whether the ruling meant that Geneva protections should be given to only those detainees brought before the military commissions, or to all detainees held at Guantanamo Bay and other US military detention facilities around the world.

That question now appears moot in light of the Pentagon move. Congress could conceivably still rewrite US law to eliminate the Geneva protections, but such a move would generate huge international criticism.

"This memo was a prudent and responsible thing to do," said a former Bush administration official with knowledge of the memo.

"Humane treatment is at the centre of the Pentagon's directives and procedures, but the court's ruling expanded previous understanding of the applicability of Common Article 3 so this memo was an important next step. It is now up to Congress to provide statutory clarity if possible."

The move, which comes as Mr Bush gets ready to leave Washington for the G8 summit in Russia, is likely to be well received by his allies, including the UK, who have been very critical of Guantanamo Bay.

Alberto Mora, the former Navy judge-advocate general who was one of the most vocal internal critics of the Pentagon's detainee policies, told the FT the move was a "marvellous development".

"We have gained ground with the Detainee Treatment Act, with the Supreme Court [Hamdan] decision and with other intervening steps," said Mr Mora. "But there is no question that this will be very well regarded both by the general public overseas and with our traditional allies and will strengthen to wage successful the war on terror."

The Pentagon has maintained that it treats detainees humanely, and investigates abuses when they come to light. In addition to international and domestic criticism following the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, however, the US military has come under renewed scrutiny recently following allegations that marines murdered 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha last year and then covered up the incident.

The Pentagon is also investigating a separate allegation that US soldiers raped a young Iraqi woman, before murdering her and three family members, including a young girl.

The policy reversal reflects the increased difficulty the administration is having defending its view that Mr Bush should have unfettered ability to prosecute the war on terror.

In December, the White House lost another major policy battle after John McCain, the Arizona senator, essentially forced the administration to accept his Detainee Treatment Act which prohibited torture. Vice President Dick Cheney and David Addington, one of his top policy advisers, had opposed Mr McCain's legislation.

While Mr Bush declined to apply the Geneva conventions to Taliban and al-Qaeda captives, he ordered in 2002 that "detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva". But his critics argued that the wording of his order provided large loopholes that could be exploited to abuse prisoners.

While the Pentagon order applies to all detainees held by the US military, it does not apply to prisoners held outside the military detention system, such as Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the September 11 attacks who is being held in a secret Central Intelligence Agency prison. But the Pentagon move could increase pressure on the administration to re-examine CIA detention policies and practices.

The Pentagon memo, which requires senior military officers to ensure that their detention and interrogation policies are compliant with Common Article 3, was ordered by William Haynes, the Pentagon general counsel, who has attracted criticism for his role in developing controversial interrogation techniques.

Mr Haynes, who has been nominated to become a federal judge, faces a critical nomination hearing on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. Until now, he has consistently sided with Mr Cheney in internal disputes in arguing prisoners captured in the war on terror should not receive Geneva protections.

Time to close Guantanamo jail, Durbin says

By Andrew Zajac
Washington Bureau

July 12, 2006

WASHINGTON -- A year after being roasted for inflammatory comments about how U.S. military personnel treated detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois said he came away from a Monday visit to the facility "with a very positive feeling about what our soldiers are doing."

But he said he remains convinced that the jail ought to be closed.

Durbin said that although he was convinced by his daylong visit that detainees are being treated humanely and in accordance with U.S. and international law, the symbolism of the jail as a center of heavy-handed U.S. treatment of captives outweighs its value as a detention facility.

"Phase it out, close it by the end of the year," the Illinois Democrat said in an interview. "It's such a powerful, negative symbol of the U.S."

The base's 450 prisoners should be transferred to facilities in the United States or, in the case of less dangerous detainees, to their countries of origin, if the U.S. can guarantee their security, he said.

In June 2005, Durbin, citing an FBI agent's account of a Guantanamo detainee "chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water," said that if a reader didn't know the identity of the personnel inflicting the abuse, "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others. ..."

His remarks touched off a furious reaction stoked by conservative talk radio hosts and bloggers, and Durbin subsequently apologized for impugning service members.

In remarks Tuesday at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on what kind of legal procedures Guantanamo detainees should be afforded, Durbin drew a sharp distinction between military personnel, whom he described as "steadfast, professional, often heroic, working in a very difficult place--bleak and barren and hotter than the hinges of hell,"--and their leaders in the Bush administration who had given them a confusing "policy on torture that was impossible to follow."

Durbin later acknowledged that the outcry following his comments last year made him extra careful to distinguish between the work of soldiers and their civilian superiors.

"That was a painful moment in my public life," the senator said. "It was a poor choice of words."

But he also said he has never backed away from opposing the use of torture against detainees.

He pointed out that in the past year, Congress has passed the McCain torture amendment banning cruel, degrading and inhumane treatment of prisoners; President Bush has said he wants to close Guantanamo, and the Supreme Court has ruled that detainees are covered by a portion of the Geneva Conventions.

- - -

What will apply to terror detainees

Here is the text of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, an international treaty governing conduct in war:

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat [out of action] by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) taking of hostages;

(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.

-- Associated Press

Well, Mr. Walter Hinteler, I do hope that you are aware that the Supreme Court Ruling will allow the President and the Congress to work together to set up MILITARY COURT MARTIALS at Guantanamo subject to some USSC restrictions.

Don't hold your breath until Gitmo is closed. You will explode.

I will continue to report the progress of the Military Court Martials.

Gitmo will not be closed by President Bush. It may be closed by a future President like Billary Rodham Clinton.

TheUSSC did not rule that GITMO had to be closed!

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??