Guantanamo suicides confirmed

oralloy wrote:

Thomas wrote:

You are assuming your conclusion by not admitting, even as a possibility, that some of the detainees may not be enemy soldiers at all -- regular or irregular.

I know it's possible. That is why they were reviewed by the tribunals.

Most of them weren't. The Economist, which cannot easily be dismissed as a bunch of Republican-hating anti-Bush shills, frequently reports that almost none of the prisoner had access to any tribunal at all, including the military commisions. On September 22 for example, they had this to say:

The Economist of 22/9/2005 wrote:

Meanwhile, the administration is pressing ahead with its plans to try some detainees before special military commissions. So far, only four have been charged, with a further 11 "designated for trial" by Mr Bush (though an Australian and two Britons have since been sent home).

(Source; registration may be required).

Admittedly, this is nine months old. Maybe things have change and the number of prisoners tried has vastly increased. But (1) To my knowledge this is not the case, and (2) even if it were so, three years are not an acceptable response time for an innocent prisoner seeking redress.

From today's Boston Globe (but similar in various other media)

Quote:

And in the United States, two senators also sharply criticized the operation yesterday. Arlen Specter, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects for years without trial a ``grave problem."

Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said on CNN that the United States should put prisoners at Guantanamo on trial. He also said that the military has brought many detainees to Guantanamo on evidence that may be too weak to produce a conviction.

``Where we have evidence, they ought to be tried. . . . As to a great many others, there is not evidence which could be brought into a court of law," Specter said.

Long-term detention of captured soldiers has been done in every long-lasting war over the last few centuries.

Thomas wrote:

oralloy wrote:

Thomas wrote:

You are assuming your conclusion by not admitting, even as a possibility, that some of the detainees may not be enemy soldiers at all -- regular or irregular.

I know it's possible. That is why they were reviewed by the tribunals.

Most of them weren't. The Economist, which cannot easily be dismissed as a bunch of Republican-hating anti-Bush shills, frequently reports that almost none of the prisoner had access to any tribunal at all, including the military commisions. On September 22 for example, they had this to say:

The Economist of 22/9/2005 wrote:

Meanwhile, the administration is pressing ahead with its plans to try some detainees before special military commissions. So far, only four have been charged, with a further 11 "designated for trial" by Mr Bush (though an Australian and two Britons have since been sent home).

(Source; registration may be required).

Admittedly, this is nine months old. Maybe things have change and the number of prisoners tried has vastly increased. But (1) To my knowledge this is not the case, and (2) even if it were so, three years are not an acceptable response time for an innocent prisoner seeking redress.

I think they are referring only to the tribunals which are hearing war crimes charges.

No war crimes trial has been completed, although they are currently attempting to try a Canadian teenager for murder.


The tribunal for determining whether someone is a soldier or a civilian is an entirely different body.

My understanding is that that tribunal has looked at almost everyone (if not everyone).

I prefer the Red Cross' interpretation.

However, other parties, such as the International Red Cross, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch maintain there is doubt, among scholars and between other nations as to the exact status, and therefore a "competent tribunal" should be held.

oralloy wrote:

Long-term detention of captured soldiers has been done in every long-lasting war over the last few centuries.

a) by whom/what countries?

b) SOLDIERS, you said it.

The tribunal for determining whether someone is a soldier or a civilian is an entirely different body.

My understanding is that that tribunal has looked at almost everyone (if not everyone).

oralloy wrote:

I prefer the Red Cross' interpretation.

From your link to wiki:

Quote:

However, other parties, such as the International Red Cross, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch maintain there is doubt, among scholars and between other nations as to the exact status, and therefore a "competent tribunal" should be held.

oralloy wrote:

The tribunal for determining whether someone is a soldier or a civilian is an entirely different body.

My understanding is that that tribunal has looked at almost everyone (if not everyone).

Can you link to a reasonably objective description of those tribunals? I'd be interested to read it.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 124-06
February 9, 2006
Guantanamo Bay Detainee Administrative Review Board Decisions Completed

The Department of Defense announced today the completion of the first round of Administrative Review Board (ARB) decisions. All of the hearings for this first round were conducted from Dec. 14, 2004, to Dec. 23, 2005. Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon R. England, the Designated Civilian Official (DCO) for the ARB process, has made final decisions on all 463 board recommendations; these decisions consist of 14 releases (3 percent), 120 transfers (26 percent) and 329 continue to detain (71 percent).



The ARB is a review process conducted annually to determine whether each detainee should be released, transferred or further detained. The outcome is based primarily on threat assessment and intelligence value of each detainee. This is a discretionary and unprecedented process that is not required by the Geneva Convention or by U.S. or international law.



During the review, each eligible enemy combatant is given the opportunity to appear in person before an ARB panel of three military officers and provide information to support his release. The enemy combatant is provided a military officer to assist him throughout the ARB process. In advance of the ARB hearing, information bearing on this assessment is also solicited from DoD and other U.S. government agencies, and from the family and national government of the enemy combatant, through the Department of State. Based on all the information provided, the ARB makes a recommendation to the DCO who makes the final decision whether to release, transfer or continue to detain the individual. If the DCO determines that continued detention is warranted, the enemy combatant will remain in DoD control, and a new review date will be scheduled to ensure an annual review.



The review process is managed by the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants, headed by Rear Adm. James M. McGarrah.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE July 30, 2004
Combatant Status Tribunal Implementation Guidance Issued

Last night the Secretary of the Navy Gordon H. England issued the implementation guidance for the Combatant Status Review Tribunal Procedures for enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. England was appointed by Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to operate and oversee the process.



The Combatant Status Review Tribunal is a formal review of all the information related to the designation of a detainee as an enemy combatant. The tribunal process provides each detainee the opportunity to personally present information as to why he should not be considered as an enemy combatant. Additionally, the tribunal will review information surrounding the capture of the detainee, information from any previous designations and any other pertinent information related to the designation as an enemy combatant. Each detainee will have the opportunity to work with a personal representative to assist in preparing for the tribunal. Each detainee will have an opportunity to review unclassified information relating to the basis for his detention.



The first tribunal will commence later today in Guantanamo.



The implementation guidance may be found at: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Jul2004/d20040730comb.pdf

Can you link to a reasonably objective description of those tribunals? I'd be interested to read it.

These tribunals appear to take for granted that the detainees are illegal combatants and the decisions don't answer the question of whether they are or not,

These don't satisfy the section of the Geneva Convention that Thomas was speaking of, as they pretty much admit in the press release.

Thomas wrote:

Can you link to a reasonably objective description of those tribunals? I'd be interested to read it.

Not really objective, but reasonable good as background information
(PDF-files!)

Gonzales on Military Commissions

Jurisdiction over foreign nationals
(from Military Law Review, gives a lot of sources ... and interesting historical informations, I think)

parados wrote:

Sierra,

There is a difference between being held for a crime without trial and having stories printed about you committing a crime.

There is an investigation of Haditha. The military is conducting it. Bush has said he will withold comments on it until it concludes. None of the soldiers involved has been placed in a prison without access to a lawyer. I don't believe any of them have even been arrested.

Compare that to those held at Guantanamo without being charged for over 3 years. No investigations, no access to lawyers. An assumption of guilt by a person holding them.

No news service has ever imprisoned anyone whether they get the story right or wrong.

No, there is no comparison. Only your ilk would compare U.S. Marines to those asswipes being held at Gitmo.

SCOTUS (you remember them?) has ruled (6-3, I believe) that the unlawful combatants can be held at Gitmo indefinitely.

Get yourself up to date and then make your assinine comments.

RASUL v. BUSH:
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that 600 foreign-born terror suspects captured abroad and held at a Navy-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have a right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

HAMDI v. RUMSFELD:
The Supreme Court ruled Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen seized on the Afghanistan battlefield in 2001, has the right to use U.S. courts to challenge his detention and status as an "enemy combatant."

RUMSFELD v. PADILLA:
In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Jose Padilla should have filed his appeal in federal court in Charleston, S.C., because he is being held at a Navy brig there, rather than in New York. The ruling overturns a lower court's finding of proper jurisdiction and unlawful detention.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice William Rehnquist reasoned that the New York courts do not have legal authority over Melanie Marr, the brig's commander, who is named in the suit. The aim is to deter unfair "forum-shopping" in which aggrieved parties pick a court most likely to rule in their favor. As a result, the case must be dismissed so Padilla can refile in South Carolina.

The court did not address the broader question of whether President Bush had authority from Congress to designate Padilla as an enemy combatant and, if so, whether an indefinite detention without charges or trial violates Padilla's constitutional rights.

Much of what I have read here can only be described as ludicrous, it just enforces my belief that many Americans are brain washed by their own fiction;

I remember the time when that once great country was admired around the world, now it is seen as the home of all that is evil,

imprisonment without trial,

the reintroduction of the barbaric act of torture,

It was only after Adolph Hitler declared war on the US in 1942 that they were forced to fight in the European theatre and I thank God that they were because surely, without their involvement the world would be marching to a different beat today.

In the years since the Second World War the US has interfered in the politics of many sovereign nations, this interference as created enemies. 9/11 a cadre of these enemies attacked the WTC and killed many innocent people, in reply this arrogant Bush administration declared to the world, "You are either with us, or against us" … What I want to say is, "butt out!"

No. When someone kills thousands of people on American soil, we get to rampage across the planet killing people.

Quote:

No. When someone kills thousands of people on American soil, we get to rampage across the planet killing people.

So does every country get to respond in this way?