0
   

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

 
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 02:49 pm
roger wrote:
Scrat, we are usually together on philosophies, but here, I do not see how they are going to appeal anything without access to lawyers or any other part of the legal system. I think you've come to the root cause of the dissatisfaction with the situation.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

Dyslexia wrote:
But both the International Committee of the Red Cross and U.N. Human Rights Commissioner consider the captives held by the US at Gitmo to be prisoners of war and have reqested that they be accorded such rights as are listed in the convention, the US has refused.

If this is true, how did they make the request? These NGOs or any government could make a formal appeal of the status of any prisoner there and the law then requires that a tribunal be empaneled to decide the question. So, if these voices are clamoring, why aren't they doing so in the manner necessary to get that particular ball rolling? The US could ignore the results, but they couldn't stop the body from being empaneled and from ruling.

Which makes me wonder if it isn't simply more useful for these voices to complain without taking the needed action to actually effect a change or have a legal finding made. If the status were decided in the US' favor, they couldn't complain any more, and if it were decided in their favor, people might have to acknowledge that the prisoners are already being treated very well. By simply complaining to a willing media, they get what I suspect they want--the use of Camp X-ray as an issue against Bush.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 03:14 pm
Dang it, Scrat! I don't know if they have to do it themselves or not. But if they do, it's sort of a catch 22 situation, isn't it?

No problem - I'm expecting other opinions momentarily.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 04:06 pm
Scrat wrote:
Can you support your statements with some citations of fact? Thanks.

You're welcome -- I can, and I did. I posted relevant excerpts from the declaration of human rights several pages ago. Assuming you have read these, which specific statements are you questioning?

-- T.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 06:11 pm
Lawyers say rules that allow evidence they may never be allowed to see, permit the government to eavesdrop on their conversations with clients, and require them to get official permission before discussing the case with witnesses or other attorneys make it impossible to prepare a meaningful defense.
"The rules have been crafted in such a way that civilian defense lawyers will find it almost impossible to effectively participate in military-tribunal cases," said Miami attorney Neal R. Sonnett, chairman of an American Bar Association task force on the treatment of enemy detainees. "And, in fact, there are many fine lawyers who believe it would be unprofessional and even unethical for a lawyer to get involved under the circumstances the government is laying down."
The proceedings are expected to begin here later this year. The United States has been holding terror suspects at Guantánamo indefinitely, without prisoner-of-war status or criminal charge, access to lawyers or visits from family.
A defendant acquitted by a commission will not necessarily be freed. The administration has reserved the right to continue holding any prisoner who officials say has continuing intelligence value or poses a threat to the United States.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/orl-asecgtmocommissions21072103jul21,0,5462705.story?coll=orl-news-headlines
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 07:07 pm
Thomas and Dys -- This business of the administration making it virtually impossible to assist those held is shocking and has troubled me from the get-go. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that citizens of this country could in fact sue the administration to allow full legal defense (to put it simply). Can either of you -- or anyone? -- suggest the best way to take action in cases of this kind? I'm beginning to think that a citizens' effort would at the very least draw a line in the sand -- send a signal that many Americans do not stand with the administration and believe it should, itself, be brought up on charges -- and might well be effective in improving the quality of justice the prisoners could expect.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 07:15 pm
tartarin I would just be guessing but i would think that the American Bar Assocition or the equivalent Defense Attorney organization would be the likely starting point. the american public doesn't really seem to care (shades of nazi germany?)
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 07:46 pm
I'm not really sure it could be done in any case. To file suit or appeal requires what lawyers call "standing" in the case. Even a class action suit requires plaintiffs. If I didn't use the phrase Catch-22 earlier, I meant to.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 08:18 pm
i think roger has it correctly, seems that this issue has already come up and no one had "standing" to pursue it..(cant say i really understand all this)
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 08:40 pm
That is indeed a Catch-22, ain't it! But it's wrong and it's even worse if America let's it go. Quite apart from what it's doing to the prisoners, this unaddressed gap in our legal system will cause real trouble particularly as it's being exploited by the administration. Shades of Nazi Germany, as you say, Dys.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 08:56 pm
Tartarin wrote:
That is indeed a Catch-22, ain't it! But it's wrong and it's even worse if America let's it go. Quite apart from what it's doing to the prisoners, this unaddressed gap in our legal system will cause real trouble particularly as it's being exploited by the administration. Shades of Nazi Germany, as you say, Dys.


That's it, Tartarin. For my part, we are together on this because of the damage it does to our own system, not out of sympathy for the prisoners. There is probably good cause for their confinement, at least originally. It is now somewhat past time for the government to state those causes and make the case.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 09:22 pm
I don't attach a greater value to one aspect of this problem over another -- it's all the same. We are at serious risk of causing suffering and damage. The potential for human and moral harm is significant. We have the power to stop it. If we don't, we are complicit. I've felt the same way about many actions taken by this administration.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Mon 4 Aug, 2003 09:27 pm
roger wrote:
Dang it, Scrat! I don't know if they have to do it themselves or not. But if they do, it's sort of a catch 22 situation, isn't it?

No problem - I'm expecting other opinions momentarily.

Someone offered this a while back:

Quote:
Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

It was to this I referred. Now, if their status is in question it seems that this is the mechanism by which it can be sorted out. Since it seems that this has not occurred, I have to ask why it has not. (And please don't simply tell me that the US won't let it happen, unless you can cite a source that specifically indicates that they have blocked the formation of said "competent tribunal".)

Thomas - For my response to something you wrote a few pages back, please see my response that followed it a few pages back. :wink:
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 10 Aug, 2003 05:11 pm
bookmark
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2003 02:47 pm
Meanwhile ...

(not to want to belittle the fate of the Guantanamo prisoners - Thomas summarised it all pretty well, and if he didn't, the Economist table he posted did - and the following therefore says more about Russia then about Guantanamo)

... Several mothers of the eight Russian citizens detained at the naval base, all Muslims, have appealed to US authorities not to extradite their sons to Russia.

Quote:
Hasanova is aware of the Russian efforts to extradite the detainees for trial at home, and says the thought fills her with dread.

"I am terribly afraid that he might be returned to Russia and put into a Russian prison," Hasanova said. "I am afraid of everything in the Russian jails. It is better for me that he remains there than to be jailed in Russia." [..]

Kudaev's mother, Nina Adizheva, said [..] she fears he will be prosecuted, tortured, and killed if he is extradited to Russia.

"I appeal to the government of the United States: Do not extradite my son to Russia, because he went to Afghanistan before 11 September and he is not a terrorist, but a victim of political repression [at home]," Adizheva said. "I also appeal to the countries of the European Union and ask them to grant my son political asylum, because if he returns home his life will be in great danger."


(Read this story first in a Dutch newspaper. Too lazy to translate, I looked it up in English - this is from Radio Free Europe (yes, yes, I know), http://www.rferl.org/newsline/2003/08/070803.asp)
0 Replies
 
wolf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2003 03:28 pm
CAMP X-RAY
The US government said today it had neither an exact count nor all the names of hundreds of people captured in Afghanistan.

New Zealand Herald

What will it take before the American people will defy this? It sickens me.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 18 Aug, 2003 03:58 pm
I wish it weren't true, but between the short attention-span of many Americans and their dismissal of the presumed guilty, there's not much chance they'll take steps about this. For what it's worth, there are organizations taking it seriously, taking the government to court, urging the international community to press American harder. The rest of us write letters to newspapers, speak to friends and... get pretty much nowhere. Most seem to think "the government must know what it's doing..."

It would be wonderful to see the administration heads charged with war crimes in a successful suit...
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2003 01:26 pm
Tartarin wrote:
For what it's worth, there are organizations taking it seriously, taking the government to court...

Can you offer specifics? What organizations? What actions have they taken?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2003 08:23 pm
Hmmm... considering the number of people in this administration who were in Reagan adn Bush I's admin, perhaps they are just following the "Meese Doctrine;" Anyone who has been arrested is proabably guiolty of something, so what if it isn't the offense they have been arrested for this time?
I am continuously reminded of a linefrom Terry Pratchett's "Jingo," where Sgt Colon says a prisoner is simply guilty of being Klatchian.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Aug, 2003 08:45 pm
Did you see Ashcroft is out jogging around the nation, covering up assorted breasts, etc., making speeches about the "Victory Act," a new attempt to get Congress to pas Patriot Act II? Fortunately there seem to be a few more slightly sane people in Congress expressing their doubts...
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 12:45 am
Quote:
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) - The U.S. military will build a fifth camp at Guantanamo Bay to hold and interrogate detainees from its war against terror, the military said Sunday in another signal its mission here will be a long-term one.

Camp V will make room for 100 more detainees, increasing the capacity at the remote naval base in eastern Cuba to 1,100, Lt. Col. Pamela Hart said.

Since the detention center first opened in January 2002, it has grown from open-air, chain-link cells that some likened to animal cages to trailer-style quarters where detainees have a metal bed, a sink and toilets that flush.

It holds about 660 men from 42 countries detained for alleged links to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror network or the ousted Afghan Taliban regime that sheltered it. They include three youths - ages 13-15 - whom the military says it probably will recommend for release soon.



U.S. Building New Camp at Guantanamo Bay
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.26 seconds on 04/29/2025 at 08:38:01