What's happening with those poor devils at Camp Xray ???

What courts?

However the fact remains that they were part of a terrorist organization that had attacked this country and promised more attacks, and they were captured in the course of armed conflict with that organization.

January 11, 2005
Comment: Guantanamo realism

Roland Watson (left), Times Washington correspondent, explains why the release of the Guantanamo Britons is more a triumph of legal realism than goodwill

"The legal foundations of Guantanamo Bay began to crumble last year when the Supreme Court ruled that the authorities could not keep foreign detainees indefinitely merely because they were believed to be a terror threat.

"The Government were just about to stage the first military tribunals. This judgment meant that they had to re-think very quickly how they were going to approach the whole issue.

"Since then there have been no tribunals, only a few preliminary hearings which are now subject to legal challenge.

"It has left the US authorities with a serious legal problem of what to do with the people who were rounded up and today's release is in part a response to that.

"It may be that the British are getting out first because of the 'special relationship' - the four Britons were accompanied by one Australian detainee, and Australia has also been a partner in the war on terror - but the expectation is that dozens, if not hundreds of the detainees will now be returned to their home countries.

"There will, however, still be a large number that the Pentagon does not want to release, particularly those from countries whose governments are hostile to the US.

"They are looking at what legal options are open to them. There is the possibility that they will construct a permanent prison camp at Guantanamo Bay where some of the detainees could well end up living out their lives.

"Holding suspects indefinitely without trial is not something that is going to trouble the sleep of most Americans. The debate over the legality of the Guantanamo Bay detentions has never struck the kind of chord domestically that it has done overseas. It has never commanded the same kind of air-time, the same level of passionate opposition here as it has in the rest of the world.

"This is mostly because of the case the administration made after the Afghanistan war, only months after the horror of 9/11, that America was caught up in a new kind of war and that its enemy was stateless terrorism. That has proved to be a very persuasive argument.

"However, the Supreme Court judgement last year did make headlines and I'm sure today's announcement will also be well covered.

"The question the authorities are now trying to answer is what they plan to do next. They are looking at their options but that is impossible to predict."

What courts? The national laws of the states involved to not provide for this situation. However the fact remains that they were part of a terrorist organization that had attacked this country and promised more attacks, and they were captured in the course of armed conflict with that organization.

George Wrote:

Quote:

What courts? The national laws of the states involved to not provide for this situation. However the fact remains that they were part of a terrorist organization that had attacked this country and promised more attacks, and they were captured in the course of armed conflict with that organization.

What you mean to say, is they may have been part of a terrorist organization. They are presumably innocent until proven guilty under the course of law.

And even more than that, how do we know that all of the prisoners there were captured during combat? Or that they even come from Afghanistan? The truth is, you and I don't know what or who these people are, and have no way of finding out, and that is the very definition of a secret prison; which is patently unAmerican.

Cycloptichorn

I think this post defines the difference between the two sides on this issue.

Our courts regularly sentence criminals to punishments without my specific knowledge or assent. These actions are taken in our names by governments we have elected to carry out these functions. Whether Cyclo or I know the details is immaterial. This principle applys to the matter of the detainees at Guantanamo.

Again, other states in the Western world routinely act in similar ways when confronted by similar threats: it is a bit hypocritical to raise the issue here and avoid it in other cases.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

What courts? The national laws of the states involved to not provide for this situation.

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.

The Supreme Court said they had the right to due process in law: it didn't say that they were unlawfulkly imprisioned.

I disagree. The Supreme Court spoke on a point of law as is their responsibility. I don't know of any serious observers of this situation who believe the strictly legal mechanisms that currently exist are entirely suitable for the protection of both public and individual interests in this matter.

One of the Australians is to be released after two and a half years of confinement and torture without charge......hmmmmmmmmmm....

Why not, exactly? Because we might not be able to technically convict people that we suspect are guilty of associating with terrorists due to lack of evidence?

How long before the same standard becomes applied to American citizens?