Guantanamo Bay

[Michaelangelica]

 

Not so at Guantanamo Bay. While not open to the public, it is publicly known. Publicly admitted to by the US government. Responsibility for it has been accepted by the US.

They now seek to convince the world that they have the right to violate their own principles in order to protect....something that a lot of good people have died for over the last couple hundred years.

 

Something has to be done. Is Guantanamo Bay it?

 

If it truly is, then move it onto US soil. Change or amend the principles your law is based on to reflect this new need, and get on with it. It is the only way.

 

If not, stop circumventing your own laws, and shut that place down. Find another way.

Guantanamo Bay is one of many such facilities.

Guantanamo Bayjust happens to be one we know about.

See "extraordinary rendition" comments on any amnesty website.

 

 

 

Release David Hicks. He is an Australian who has been held for five years without trial

[Freddy]

Last week's Supreme Court decision on Guantanamo may force the Bush administration to follow civilian judicial rules concerning the detainees trials. However, Congress may also pass a law that gives Bush the power to conduct military tribunals in regard to the detainees. Time will tell.

[Michaelangelica]

I think this story well illustrates the problems the USA has in dealing with the world.:hihi:

 

Subject: The French woman just sniffed

 

The train was crowded, so a U.S. Marine walked the entire length looking for a seat, but the only seat left was taken by a well dressed, middle-aged, French woman's poodle. The war-weary Marine asked, "Ma'am, may I please have that seat?"

 

The French woman just sniffed and said to no one in particular, "Americans are so rude. My little Fifi is using that seat."

 

The Marine walked the entire train again, but the only seat left was under that dog. "Please, ma'am, I'm very tired... may I sit down?"

 

She snorted, "Not only are you Americans rude, you are also incredibly arrogant!"

 

This time the Marine didn't say a word; he just picked up the dog, tossed it out the train window, and sat down.

 

The woman shrieked, "Someone must defend my honor! Do something to put this American in his place!"

 

An English gentleman sitting nearby spoke up, "Sir, you Americans seem to have a penchant for doing the wrong thing. You hold the fork in the wrong hand, you drive your vehicles on the wrong side of the road - and now, sir, you seem to have thrown the wrong ***** out the window."

[Michaelangelica]

An advertisment

Dear friends,

 

For four and a half years, Australian citizen David Hicks has been locked up - allegedly tortured - without trial. Now, the US Supreme Court has confirmed what the world already knew: that David Hicks never had a hope for a fair trial because the system set up to try prisoners at Guantanamo Bay was fatally flawed from the start.

 

Enough is enough! No more waiting for a decision to be made somewhere else. No more excuses for supporting a system found to be unlawful. With our government facing unprecedented pressure to find a real solution now, tell them it's time for David Hicks to come home and let justice run its course.

 

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/DefendAustralianRights

 

As leaders from around the world had their citizens removed from Guantanamo Bay, and even America's staunchest allies called for this 'symbol of injustice' to be closed down, the Australian Government continued its support.

 

Their excuse has been that David Hicks cannot be tried in Australia - but eminent legal authorities have refuted this claim.*

 

The only path to justice now, without months or even years more of unwarranted delays, is for the Australian Government to step up and finally do its job. Demand Alexander Downer and John Howard take action to bring David Hicks home immediately - and let the evidence be heard.

 

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/DefendAustralianRights

 

When GetUp first began this campaign last year, media from around the world, starting with The New York Times, reported our willingness to defend the rights of a citizen our government had abandoned.

 

This week, one of Australia's leading prosecutors, NSW Director of Public Prosecutions Nick Cowdery, QC, called Hicks' case "an unprincipled disgrace" and said the Government now had "no excuse" for not seeking his return.

 

Each of us has the right to a fair trial, and David Hicks' rights must no longer be forsaken for political convenience. If you haven't already, please join us now in taking a stand.

 

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/DefendAustralianRights

 

Thanks for being part of this,

The GetUp team

 

*including Professor George Williams and Devika Hovell, directors of the public and international law units respectively at the University of NSW

-------------------------------------------------------------------

If you have trouble with any links in this email, please go directly to http://www.getup.org.au.

 

GetUp is an independent, not-for-profit community campaigning group. We use new technology to empower Australians to have their say on important national issues.

[Cedars]

If we are going to fight terrorists, then David Hicks seems to be exactly the type of person who Gitmo was designed to hold. David Hicks has his own page on wikipedia.com and it seems it is Australia that doesnt want him back until the charges against him are resolved.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks

 

In 1999, Hicks travelled to Albania (leaving behind a failed relationship and two children), where he joined the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a paramilitary organisation of ethnic Albanian Muslims fighting against Serbian forces in the Kosovo War, and served with them for two months.

 

In 2004 an Australian documentary called The President versus David Hicks was made by Curtis Levy, with the cooperation of Terry Hicks, who appears in the documentary.

 

In the documentary, Terry Hicks reads out excerpts of David Hicks's letters, in which Hicks says that his training in Pakistan and Afghanistan is designed to ensure "the Western-Jewish domination is finished, so we live under Muslim law again". He denounces the plots of the Jews to divide Muslims and make them think poorly of Osama bin Laden and warns his father to ignore "the Jews' propaganda war machine."

 

In November 2005, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation programme Four Corners broadcast for the first time a transcript of an interview with Hicks, conducted by the Australian Federal Police in 2002. [3] In this interview Hicks acknowledged that he had trained with al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, learning guerilla tactics and urban warfare. He also acknowledged that he had met Osama bin Laden.

 

After arriving in Konduz on 9 November 2001, he joined a group which included John Walker Lindh (the "American Taliban"). This group was engaged in combat against Coalition forces, and during this fighting he was captured by Coalition forces.

 

And from this page http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1636275.htm

 

"The Australian Government's only concession to David Hicks is that if he does stand trial before the US military court and is sentenced to jail, he could serve that time in an Australian prison."

 

I do not approve 100% of Gitmo, but I also think terrorists need to be stopped and every effort should be made to ensure this occurs. While I know the families of these persons (D. Hicks, J. Walker Lindh etc) are feeling very badly about what their children/siblings have chosen to do, the bigger picture is the rest of us need assurances that these persons from our own countries will not be given the opportunity to inflict their idea of 'justice for allah' on the rest of us.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I agree Cedars. David Hicks is a terrorist.

 

But he still either gets a (real) trial before we lock him up for all time, or he gets to be a prisoner of war, according the Geneva convention.

 

Unfortunately, he also appears to be a pretty lousy terrorist, which I suppose is why the Government felt it needed to hold him without charge.

 

I have no problem making "consorting with terrorists" or whatever a severe crime so that he (and others like him) can be prosecuted (in a real court.)

 

TFS

[Cedars]

I agree Cedars. David Hicks is a terrorist.

 

But he still either gets a (real) trial before we lock him up for all time, or he gets to be a prisoner of war, according the Geneva convention.

 

Unfortunately, he also appears to be a pretty lousy terrorist, which I suppose is why the Government felt it needed to hold him without charge.

 

I have no problem making "consorting with terrorists" or whatever a severe crime so that he (and others like him) can be prosecuted (in a real court.)

 

TFS

 

He was scheduled for trial. "His trial before a U.S. military commission was due to begin in November 2005, however proceedings were stayed pending a Supreme Court case challenging the constitutionality of the commission process." from the wikipedia info.

 

The wheels of Justice turn slowly sometimes and this is a very unexplored area for the US government to handle. The fact that the delays in Hicks trial occured due to legal issues brought up by defense teams indicates some pieces of what we expect from the "innocent until proven guilty" concept is leaking thru even to this place off american soil. And I can think of no other legal system in place that can handle these cases at this time. I think that is why Australia isnt demanding the chance to handle this in their own courts.

 

More work needs to be done to get the foundation of Justice rolling again, even for these terrorists held. I do not agree with detention without charges, the limits on defense teams, and these issues, but after working a bit in government I also understand the delays when trying to create laws regarding unexplored areas. It is very hard to ensure a law written will foresee all aspects of manipulation that can be tossed about during a trial.

 

I do not want to see terrorists getting out of the charges/convictions overturned due to a technicality in how a particular law was written to protect the US from terrorists. Its not just US citizens who are being protected from David Hicks right now either. It is citizens of the world who do not have to fear David Hicks, John Walker Lindh, etc. at least for now.

[Kayra]

The fact that the delays in Hicks trial occured due to legal issues brought up by defense teams indicates some pieces of what we expect from the "innocent until proven guilty" concept is leaking thru even to this place off american soil.

 

 

The legal system is either in place.. or it is not.

 

And I can think of no other legal system in place that can handle these cases at this time.

 

 

Apparently, no legal system is in place now.

 

 

More work needs to be done to get the foundation of Justice rolling again, even for these terrorists held. I do not agree with detention without charges, the limits on defense teams, and these issues, but after working a bit in government I also understand the delays when trying to create laws regarding unexplored areas. It is very hard to ensure a law written will foresee all aspects of manipulation that can be tossed about during a trial.

 

I do not want to see terrorists getting out of the charges/convictions overturned due to a technicality in how a particular law was written to protect the US from terrorists.

 

 

I was under the understanding (no authoritative view here) that the US Legal system was based on the premise that it is better to let a dozen guilty people go then imprison unjustly a single person. Is it time to abandon that premise?

 

 

Its not just US citizens who are being protected from David Hicks right now either. It is citizens of the world who do not have to fear David Hicks, John Walker Lindh, etc. at least for now.

 

That is very true.

 

But who protects US Citizens, or citizens of the world from a US Government that determines if it should disregard it's own basic principles based on that fear?

 

What it is doing is not right, it is expedient. In the end, the world is a safer place for it, so the end justifies the means?

[Michaelangelica]

If we are going to fight terrorists, then David Hicks seems to be exactly the type of person who Gitmo was designed to hold.

Great

If he is a baddie

good

1)charge him with something

2) Give him a trial

3) If he is found guilty lock him up

He has been held in a small prison cell for FIVE years. For what?

 

What are WE fighting in Iraq for, again?

 

Like the USA, not all Australians can be held responsible for the illegal or spineless acts of their governments.

Perhaps we can, if we stand by and watch blatant human rights abuse.

[nkt]

What are WE fighting in Iraq for, again?

It is good that you ask that question. I was told, along with millions of others, that this was a war that would protect our very way of life, a life that had freedom of speech and of association, freedom of information, a right to privacy, an open trial, to face our accusers, and, if we find it that bad where we are, some kind of right to leave the country and go someplace else.

 

Funny that every last one of those "rights" above have long since vanished, for "the war".

 

If you read 1984, they use constant war as the way to hold onto absolute power. I'm seeing the same thing today, although the power is not yet absolute.

[HydrogenBond]

I think that what is/was going on at club gtmo is appropriate to war. If the shoe was on the other foot and American pow's were being held by the terrorists, torture and brutality would take on a whole new dimension. What America did is lightweight stuff compared to what is possible. If I was a POW I would prefer being held by America. I could whine if they give me steak once a week as cruel and unusual punishment. The liberals will agree and I would get steak twice a week. If they bring in the babes to humilitate me ,I would pretend it really bothers me so they will make it a regular part of my stay at club gtmo. They are soilders, not children and are trained for hardship, detention, and survival at all costs.

[TheFaithfulStone]

You're in a tough spot when you justify what you're doing by saying it's not as bad what people who would murder women and children and a few thousand unsuspecting stockbrokers would do.

 

TFS

[Kayra]

I think that what is/was going on at club gtmo is appropriate to war.

 

Agreed.

 

If the shoe was on the other foot and American pow's were being held by the terrorists, torture and brutality would take on a whole new dimension.

What America did is lightweight stuff compared to what is possible. If I was a POW I would prefer being held by America. I could whine if they give me steak once a week as cruel and unusual punishment. The liberals will agree and I would get steak twice a week. If they bring in the babes to humilitate me ,I would pretend it really bothers me so they will make it a regular part of my stay at club gtmo.

 

 

Not relevant.. not relevant at all.

Saying it is OK for your government to act a "little bit" like a dictatorship is just so many kinds of wrong.

 

They are soilders, not children and are trained for hardship, detention, and survival at all costs.

 

Who are soldiers? The Government does not have to tell you who they have there, how long they have them, nor even why they are detained. You are being told you must "Trust" that they will take appropriate action by a government that created a prison in another country to avoid it's own laws.

 

Bring the prisoners to United States soil, an deal with the resulting mess it will inevitably create. It will force the resolution of the issue one way or the other.

[Panjandrum]

I believe the american government actively denied they were soldiers at all, until the supreme court decreed otherwise.

 

Also, I find it questionable to say something is morally justified if the other guys do/ would have done the same thing in our place. Morality should not be a relative thing, either an act is moral or it is not, the circumstances are irrelevant.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Morality should not be a relative thing, either an act is moral or it is not, the circumstances are irrelevant.

 

And that puts you in the sticky situation of saying that killing Hitler to prevent the Holocaust would be unethical.

 

Ethics are always situational.

 

TFS

[Freddy]

Again the US Supreme Court ruled recently that the Bush Administration cannot use Military Tribunals to try Enemy Combatants. Any trials must be held in US civilian courts or in regular military court marshals. Bush and his lacky Congress may try to legislate around the ruling but the American people likely will not go along with any attempt to do so.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/29/AR2006062900928.html

[Cedars]

The legal system is either in place.. or it is not.

Apparently, no legal system is in place now.

 

 

Actually, the fact that this was ruled on by the Supreme Court indicates a legal system is in place here also, though it may not have as much experience/precedence as some of our more familiar methods of dealing out Justice has.

 

Several detainees have taken up their issues in American civilian courts and have been released. You can google "guantanamo bay" and "released detainees" for further information and its not just American citizens who have used this avenue.

 

 

I was under the understanding (no authoritative view here) that the US Legal system was based on the premise that it is better to let a dozen guilty people go then imprison unjustly a single person. Is it time to abandon that premise?

 

Many aspects of our innocent until proven guilty protections have been being chipped away for many years. Search and Seizures, Urine testing, drug courts have long ruled in favor of protecting the governments snitches (confront your accuser) and a host of other chippings. There are also some crimes that the government has no statute of limitations on pursuing, but yes, we do expect charges to be leveled within a certain amount of time.

 

That is exactly why this camp (and others) are not on US soils. The line is blurred there. We go thru this when trouble making Indians get to the reservation before the local police can catch them, or Mexicans get to the border, or American troublemakers flee Tijuanna just ahead of the local policia. Sovereign Nations and military justice are issues that circumvent the constitution with years of court backing. Bush chose this avenue exactly for that reason.

 

As I stated in a previous post, the ability for lawmakers and related officials to see all the potential flaws in the laws they are writing and the Geneva convention itself never imagined this situation either. A gaping hole in the theory of prisoners and war has been discovered, but the numbers do not indicate a real problem with justice being denied for a significant percentage of the population of these countries of detainee origin. I havent any quarrel with persons fighting for the rights of detainees, its the only way to speed up the process. But I am also sure that there isnt 500 innocent persons being held at Gitmo.

 

Simply put, no one really wants these terrorists back on their pieces of the world either. So I guess what is being said is terrorism changes some of these rules for some people and its not just the American government that feels this way.

 

Maybe its just the warning that is needed to all those who would venture off to places in the world that the USA is gonna be stomping around in, keeping in mind this Hicks character was tagged in Afghanistan, with world backing on this invasion. Note to potential freedom fighters: You risk your own governments turning their back on you should you get caught fighting on the side of terrorists. I think this is a very appropriate message for governments to send to citizen terrorists /wannabe muhjadeen.

 

But who protects US Citizens, or citizens of the world from a US Government that determines if it should disregard it's own basic principles based on that fear?

 

What it is doing is not right, it is expedient. In the end, the world is a safer place for it, so the end justifies the means?

 

Australias position is Hicks should answer the charges against him before any other action will be taken by the government on Hicks behalf. Gitmo is not an end, its a begining on resolving how to handle terrorism and the combatants who align themselves with terrorism.

 

I would expect that with this issue having risen to world view that there will be some changes to Geneva Convention issues and probably other resolutions created to deal with this unplanned for circumstance, in the future, to insure a broader understanding of the issue of terrorism and these combatants whos designation needs a defined approach for future wars. But until this occurs Gitmo will remain in operation. And I cant say its an entirely bad idea.