Setanta wrote: How does anyone know they are terrorists, if they've never had a hearing before a competent tribunal, as required by the Geneva Convention?
Setanta, this question finally proves your hatred of America. Shame on you!
The Geneva Convention relative to prisoners of war requires signatory powers to treat anyone taken in arms as a prisoner of war until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal. The Supreme Court found that there was not a competent tribunal at Guantanamo, which is why they are now being arraigned under the terms of the law Congress enacted to arraign and try those detained there.
I don't think the administration ever wanted to proceed in a legal manner, because their own propaganda encouraged Americans to believe that anyone taken on the battlefield were automatically terrorists. Witness that even someone intelligent who usually argues cogently, Oralloy, automatically brands them as members of al Qaeda, although we have no good reason to assume that Oralloy knows for a fact that that is the case.
Likely, little or nothing would have been done if there hadn't been "detainees" from nations such as Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia, for whom lawyers were willing to make an effort to get them released, or at the very least, to force the United States to follow the provisions of the Geneva Convention, and have their status determined by a competent tribunal. This administration would have been happy to milk them for information (and while using questionable methods, which it couldn't have used if they had been held in the United States), and then let them rot.
Some have said they don't want to go "home". Others that have been released to their home countries are imprisoned there (without charges or counsel).
FreeDuck wrote:
Please tell me that somewhere in this mess we will make the determination that children (15 for chrissakes!) cannot be labelled enemy comabatants, illegal or otherwise.
He's alleged to have killed an American soldier in a shootout. He won't be going anywhere for a while, probably.
Thomas wrote:Setanta wrote: How does anyone know they are terrorists, if they've never had a hearing before a competent tribunal, as required by the Geneva Convention?
Setanta, this question finally proves your hatred of America. Shame on you!
It's worse than that--i want Protestant ministers to be homosexually raped, all Christian women to be forced to abort whenever they are determined to be pregnant, and cats and dogs to be forced to live together.
Clearly Canada is a bad influence on you. Next thing you'll demand lawyers for the Gitmo prisoners.
HokieBird wrote:He's alleged to have killed an American soldier in a shootout. He won't be going anywhere for a while, probably.
While this is true (i.e., that this is alleged), even if proven, it would not be grounds for holding him indefinitely. If he is classified a legal combatant, then it is not murder to kill an American soldier, while fighting for the other side in a war.
Setanta wrote:Thomas wrote:Setanta wrote: How does anyone know they are terrorists, if they've never had a hearing before a competent tribunal, as required by the Geneva Convention?
Setanta, this question finally proves your hatred of America. Shame on you!
It's worse than that--i want Protestant ministers to be homosexually raped, all Christian women to be forced to abort whenever they are determined to be pregnant, and cats and dogs to be forced to live together.
I agree with the last one.
Thomas wrote:Clearly Canada is a bad influence on you. Next thing you'll demand lawyers for the Gitmo prisoners.
That would depend upon how they were prepared--roasted, fried?
And you'd want Muslim or Jewish lawyers, just to be sure they had eaten no pork before they were served to the inmates.
Setanta wrote:It is only an assumption on your part that those being held are or were members of al Qaeda--in fact, the most plausible assumption is either that they were fighting for the Taliban, then the government of Afghanistan, or that they were turned in by neighbors with a grudge for the considerable bounties which were being offered by the U. S. military.
In addition, I think it's reasonable to assume that some were not picked up in Afghanistan at all, but were kidnapped by the CIA abroad and transferred through Afghan prisons. There's a specific case I'm thinking of... let me see if I can find it.
FreeDuck wrote:Setanta wrote:It is only an assumption on your part that those being held are or were members of al Qaeda--in fact, the most plausible assumption is either that they were fighting for the Taliban, then the government of Afghanistan, or that they were turned in by neighbors with a grudge for the considerable bounties which were being offered by the U. S. military.
In addition, I think it's reasonable to assume that some were not picked up in Afghanistan at all, but were kidnapped by the CIA abroad and transferred through Afghan prisons. There's a specific case I'm thinking of... let me see if I can find it.
Here we go. I was wrong, it wasn't a CIA kidnapping, but they were arrested in Bosnia and not Afghanistan.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6520816
Yeah, that's a big one. I think I had his case mixed up with the Bosnian six somehow. El-Masri got lucky I guess -- he didn't end up in Guantanamo.
An update--human rights activists in Canada are demanding that the government in Ottawa put pressure on the United States to return Omar Khadr to Canada (his family lives in Toronto). Most of them are arguing that it is not a matter of asserting that Khadr is innocent, but rather that it would uphold a Canadian principle that everyone is entitled to a fair trial. To that, those who are opposed to bringing him back ask if they intend that Khadr be tried in Canada, and if so, for what.
Stephen Harper has been spending a lot of time in the last year and a half making nice with Bush and Company. It is hard to imagine his government making any kind of "demand" of the U.S. government--and even if he did, what power would he have, what leverage?
Setanta wrote:An update--human rights activists in Canada are demanding that the government in Ottawa put pressure on the United States to return Omar Khadr to Canada (his family lives in Toronto). Most of them are arguing that it is not a matter of asserting that Khadr is innocent, but rather that it would uphold a Canadian principle that everyone is entitled to a fair trial.
This is sounding like very familiar territory, Setanta! Deja vu.
Regarding the nationality/country of origin of Guantanamo detainees, here's the list compiled by the Washington Post between 2002-May 2006. Information on those who have been released (or still detained) is included. The largest numbers appear to originate from Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen & Pakistan.
(Very interesting
Washington Post site, btw)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/nationalsecurity/gitmoarchive.html
I get the impression that Khadr will probably be reclassified - an an unlawful combatant.
Setanta wrote:It is only an assumption on your part that those being held are or were members of al Qaeda--in fact, the most plausible assumption is either that they were fighting for the Taliban, then the government of Afghanistan, or that they were turned in by neighbors with a grudge for the considerable bounties which were being offered by the U. S. military.
I agree that most were fighting for the Taliban (or were possibly innocent civilians). However, I see the Taliban as a very close ally of al-Qa'ida in this war, and therefore their fighters when captured can be detained until the end of the war.
I suppose that if the Taliban ever capitulated while al-Qa'ida fought on, it might be possible to release Taliban fighters if it seemed likely that those fighters wouldn't go join up with al-Qa'ida. But those are a couple very big ifs. As it stands now, the Taliban is still fighting us.
oralloy wrote:Setanta wrote:It is only an assumption on your part that those being held are or were members of al Qaeda--in fact, the most plausible assumption is either that they were fighting for the Taliban, then the government of Afghanistan, or that they were turned in by neighbors with a grudge for the considerable bounties which were being offered by the U. S. military.
I agree that most were fighting for the Taliban (or were possibly innocent civilians). However, I see the Taliban as a very close ally of al-Qa'ida in this war, and therefore their fighters when captured can be detained until the end of the war.
I suppose that if the Taliban ever capitulated while al-Qa'ida fought on, it might be possible to release Taliban fighters if it seemed likely that those fighters wouldn't go join up with al-Qa'ida. But those are a couple very big ifs. As it stands now, the Taliban is still fighting us.
Yes, but Taliban fighters are not 'unlawful combatants.' They were on the opposite side from us, but fighting for a recognized country and force.
Cycloptichorn
old europe wrote:oralloy wrote:It seems a minor thing to set up some commissions to determine that these guys were unlawful combatants, then the tribunals will be right back on track.
That has been said before, right?
I know I've said it before. I don't know why they haven't done so yet, since it would be easy to do and would resolve much legal hassle.
I suspect this latest legal setback may finally get them to do it.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Yes, but Taliban fighters are not 'unlawful combatants.'
They were if they weren't wearing a proper uniform (among other requirements for lawful combatant status).
HokieBird wrote:I get the impression that Khadr will probably be reclassified - an an unlawful combatant.
the problem is that they don't have a way to do that yet. buncha doofuses.
