Guantanamo Bay

[Cedars]

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.

 

If you look to the wikipedia link I posted you will see Hicks has been charged and was to begin a trial. Due to legal briefs filed, the trial was delayed to see the outcome, much to Hicks advantage. Now the US has to decide whether to take him to court under the current ruling of SCotUS standard or to release him. If he is found guilty it appears the Australian government will appeal for him to be able to do his time in Australia.

 

I just felt if your going to post a cry for help for this person that the forum readers should have an option to see why he is being held and make a determination from multiple points of view whether or not they should support the efforts of the group you linked to earlier today.

[Michaelangelica]

If you look to the wikipedia link I posted you will see Hicks has been charged and was to begin a trial. Due to legal briefs filed, the trial was delayed to see the outcome, much to Hicks advantage. Now the US has to decide whether to take him to court under the current ruling of SCotUS standard or to release him. If he is found guilty it appears the Australian government will appeal for him to be able to do his time in Australia.

 

I just felt if your going to post a cry for help for this person that the forum readers should have an option to see why he is being held and make a determination from multiple points of view whether or not they should support the efforts of the group you linked to earlier today.

I am well aware of the in and outs of the Hicks case thanks

and I don't use dubious sources like Wikepedia

I use Amnesty and the independent news gathering service of the Australian Broadcasting Commission among others.

 

"was to begin a trial" sure after five years goal . Any crime he MAY have committed would be very unlikely to give him a five year sentence.

 

You are also missing the point of the systematic abuse of human rights by the USA

a country who should be leading by example; not doing a little better (or worse?) that some tin-pot dictator might in the same circumstances.

 

If you want a democracy you have to act like one, not just talk like one.

[paigetheoracle]

With regards to guilt or innocense - the only person who knows the truth for certain about a committed act is the person who did it (physical guilt). Likewise the feeling of guilt or innocense exists in the person accused: If they did it, they may feel fully justified and therefore innocent in their own mind or feel guilty having done nothing (The people who turn up regularly admitting to crimes, just to get attention). Punishing someone for a crime they feel justified in committing, only strengthens their feelings of justification and turns an innocent man bitter. Allowing a person to see the error of their ways is the only way of disarming the guilty (justice has to be personal because political justice is double dealing and the attempt to 'seem' to be doing the right thing, rather than actually doing the right thing).

 

 

There are no easy answers just tough questions

[Cedars]

I am well aware of the in and outs of the Hicks case thanks

and I don't use dubious sources like Wikepedia

I use Amnesty and the independent news gathering service of the Australian Broadcasting Commission among others.

 

So what information relayed in wikipedia regarding David Hicks is dubious?

 

The article has listed its references and include the Australian Broadcasting Corp, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Age and others. If you have found fault with the wikipedia information, feel free to submit information and correct this or even post corrections here. If not, then I would say this article regarding Hicks relays correct information and is not so 'dubious'.

 

I quit Amnesty Int. in 2001 due to their position on the terrorist attack on America after writing countless letters for political prisoners for the 15 years before that. There is a big difference between political prisoners and murderous criminals.

 

"was to begin a trial" sure after five years goal . Any crime he MAY have committed would be very unlikely to give him a five year sentence.

 

Nothing but a guess on your part. Being as John Walker Lindh received a 20 year sentence I would say your guess is a bit dubious.

 

You are also missing the point of the systematic abuse of human rights by the USA

a country who should be leading by example; not doing a little better (or worse?) that some tin-pot dictator might in the same circumstances.

 

If you want a democracy you have to act like one, not just talk like one.

 

Abuse occurs in situations like this on occasion. This is why we are seeing some soldiers charged with crimes. To paint the effort of the USA to fight terrorism as systematic abuse of human rights is misleading and degrades the efforts of many persons to change the world for the better.

 

The USA rolled over and tried diplomatic methods to end terrorism in many fights over many years. It didnt work, rather incidents of terrorism increased against the USA. The attack on 9/11 wasnt the first effort on the part of terrorists with Islam as their guide, its just the USA decided to make it the last time our citizens will be attacked and ignored.

[Panjandrum]

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

 

I would indeed claim just that. If you were to kill Hitler in 1932, before he had done anything particularly immoral, it would be an immoral act. If you were to kill him immediately after he gave his approval for the Holocaust, it would be a moral act. I dont see anything sticky about this position at all.

[Panjandrum]

With regards to guilt or innocense - the only person who knows the truth for certain about a committed act is the person who did it (physical guilt).

 

Relying on guilt is a dubious basis for a justice system. What of those people who feel no guilt whatsoever, regardless of what they do?

[Kayra]

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.

 

The legal system was only Aloud to be put in place when the public was made aware of the prison. Do you believe.. REALLY believe... that any sort of justice would have been made available to those prisoners had this not been the case? I for one do not. It was just WAY too tempting a situation, having a place to hold prisoners that was not subject to the nagging restrictive justice system. Need to question a prisoner? No problem, but first lets soften him/her up a bit by "Distressing" him/her. there is no advocate outside the system watching us, so lets really get some information out of this fella. We are certain he is guilty after all.

 

2-5 years and many many interrogations later.... they release release him...how freaking joyous. Jump up and down everybody.. the US has been magnanimous once again. It seems the public is becoming aware of this situation.. best start watching ourselves.

 

The depth of possibilities for a system to be abusive, that has no monitoring, is staggering.

 

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.

 

?? Because he decided to act like those American Troublemakers fleeing Tijuana? He evaded and avoided laws he found inconvenient.

 

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.

 

What indications? Information the government is releasing?

New situations do demand new laws, that much is self evident. So the best way to create these new laws it so... hide the fact that your are circumventing existing ones?

 

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.

 

Good point. I wonder just how many innocent persons are being held. Oh, that's right.. we have no way of knowing.

 

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.

 

You are correct, nobody wants these terrorists back on the streets.

Who decides which people? Somebody does, they do it out of public view, and I would guess they do it without due process.

 

 

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.

 

I doubt any freedom fighter that volunteers to actually fight for these folks cares one iota about what country the US will be stomping around in. It is not a deterrent, and may even serve to attract a certain element to it.

 

Australias position is Hicks should answer the charges against him before any other action will be taken by the government on Hicks behalf.

 

Hicks is hardly a poster boy for who should be released, but he certainly serves as a center point on how public awareness helps to force proper due process, whether the government wants it or not.

 

Gitmo is not an end, its a begining on resolving how to handle terrorism and the combatants who align themselves with terrorism.

 

That is singly the most insightful and frightening statement made in this entire thread.

 

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.

 

Absolutely. I agree whole-heartedly.

The US's choice in how they handled this situation has caused enough of an international uproar that it has Finlay made the world realize that the rules have to change, because if they do not, even countries like the United States will feel justified in using methods that circumvent almost every aspect of what makes them a free country.

 

But until this occurs Gitmo will remain in operation. And I cant say its an entirely bad idea.

 

Sadly, I agree that a place like this needs to exist, but it needs to be public, visible to advocates for the prisoners, and have a due proccess in place.

 

It needs to be moved th US soil, or it is nothing less then a total violation of what the US stands for.

If the legal system can not handle it, then perhaps such a place on US soil would force appropriate changes to be made.

[sebbysteiny]

Wow, is a consensus being reached that Guantanimo Bay is an unfortunate necessity until international law can be rewriten to deal with the terrorist threat?

[TheFaithfulStone]

Wow, is a consensus being reached that Guantanimo Bay is an unfortunate necessity until international law can be rewriten to deal with the terrorist threat?

 

No.

 

The problem with Gitmo isn't that it isn't a good idea, it's that it's an idea which betrays the principles the US was founded on.

 

For example, I could probably stick toothpicks underneath your fingernails until you agreed with everything I said. If I had no real accountability for that, and I really want you to agree with everything I say, then that's a pretty good idea. However, if my principles dictate that I shouldn't hurt people for expediency, doesn't it go against the grain of agreeing with everything I say if you do it under duress?

 

Besides, the situation you describe is not the case. It isn't like GW and friends made a prison, put a bunch of people in it and said - "now we need to come up with a way to keep these guys in prison and try them for being terrorists (which they are.) Congress, could you come up with something? We'll just hold them here in the interim, thanks."

 

There is every bit of evidence that the US intented to hold the prisoners at Gitmo without representation, recourse, or outside monitoring until they were all dead. And maybe add a few more along the way.

 

TFS

[sebbysteiny]

There is every bit of evidence that the US intented to hold the prisoners at Gitmo without representation, recourse, or outside monitoring until they were all dead. And maybe add a few more along the way.

 

I'm afraid you will have to produce that evidence. Since there is 'every bit of evidence', the task should be easy.

 

I could probably stick toothpicks underneath your fingernails until you agreed with everything I said. If I had no real accountability for that, and I really want you to agree with everything I say, then that's a pretty good idea. However, if my principles dictate that I shouldn't hurt people for expediency, doesn't it go against the grain of agreeing with everything I say if you do it under duress?

 

I'm not fully understanding your argument. I think you mean 1) one cannot rely on torture because it is obtained under duress and 2) something about people's principals but I couldn't work out whose and what the principals were (sorry).

 

However, I can tackle 1. I agree that your METHOD of 'interigation' would be inneffective. That is why you are not employed by the US as an interigator. However a decent interrigator will not simply cause pain until they admit 'facts': they will cause pain (probably psycological) until they admit the truth that can be independantly verified. Big difference. The latter can be relied on to save the lives of thousands.

 

Besides, the situation you describe is not the case. It isn't like GW and friends made a prison, put a bunch of people in it and said - "now we need to come up with a way to keep these guys in prison and try them for being terrorists

 

There is a big oversimplication which people normally make when talking about Guantanimo Bay (and similar places). I can't work out if you have said it, but the simplication is this: if there was evidence to prove that the suspects were terrorists, then they should be tried by a court.

 

The problem with this is that some evidence may be so secret that were it to be released, thousands of Americans (or other Westerners) may die and vital intelligence sources lost permanently. I still don't object to people forming the view that GB is an immoral place as long as they realise that the only alternatives are to either release people who are certainly a danger to society or to release top secret information. Either way, innocent people will die. Is this blood price worth paying for a sense of feeling warm and fuzzy inside? That's a personal decision.

 

One could perhaps consider this in terms of human rights. The suspects human rights are being infringed. While this is right innocent people have a right to life. One must balance the human rights of the suspect with the human rights of the innocent people who might die. Again, the answer to that balancing act is still a personal decision.

[pgrmdave]

I think that the principles which TFS was speaking about were those within the US Constitution, mainly in the Bill of Rights. Keep in mind that the Constitution applies to anybody within the United States, not just citizens, or citizens in good standing, but anybody on US soil. That, to most people, implies that we believe that to the degree that America can, we should provide those rights to people. While we may not have a legal obligation to aid free speech, press, religion, and governments, or have a legal obligation to provide the rights guarenteed in the fourth and fifth ammendments, or to follow any of them off US soil, it is generally expected that we will try to follow the Constitution, that we have a moral responsibility to uphold that which is America (the Constitution) and the ideals it entails.

[sebbysteiny]

I think that the principles which TFS was speaking about were those within the US Constitution

 

Your argument was quite convincing that the principals of the US Constatution should be adhered to without good reason. But which principals within the US Constitution are you both talking about?

[HydrogenBond]

I may be wrong about this but weren't the original prisoners taken to gtmo part of Sadaam's elite soldiers, who resisted the American occupation and therefore sort of sided with the terrorists in principle. These were the same one's, at least partially responsbile for 100, 000's of Iraqi deaths. Many of these were part of civilian torture. By detaining them we may have saved their lives from revenge in their own country. Now we are painted as the bad guys for hurting their feelings; mass murdurers have feelings too.

[Panjandrum]

Youre quite right. You are wrong about that. Guantanamo was first 'home' to Taliban fighters from afghanistan (and a lot of non-taliban fighters who were sold to the CIA for the $5000 reward).

 

Also, I dont think that doing your job, which in the case of the Iraqi Republican Guard was to defend Iraq from invasion, should be interpreted as sideing with terrorism. In fact, I cant really understand why you would think it does.

[sebbysteiny]

These were the same one's, at least partially responsbile for 100, 000's of Iraqi deaths.

 

You have fallen for the very well organised 'stop the war coalition' propaganda. There has almost certainly not been even 100,000 deaths. Current best estimates are about 35,000.

 

The 100,000 comes from a pole which concluded that the actual number of Iraqi civilian casualties was between about 5,000 and 107,000. Natuarlly, those with no interest in truth picked the number 100,000 for no reason other than public impact.

 

Don't beat yourself up over it. It could happen to the best of us since those guys know exactly what they are doing.

 

 

Also, I don't believe any prisoners of GB prisoners are Saddam supporters: only Al Qaeda suspects.

[TheFaithfulStone]

I'm afraid you will have to produce that evidence. Since there is 'every bit of evidence', the task should be easy.

 

Evidentiary Item One:

 

The Executive branch of the U.S. government has classified the detainees in Camp X-Ray as "illegal combatants," rather than prisoners of war (POWs), which they claim means that they do not have to be conferred the rights granted to POWs under the Geneva Conventions. The U.S. government justifies this designation by claiming that they do not have the status of either regular soldiers nor that of guerrillas, and they are not part of a regular army or militia.

 

Thus detainees at Gitmo are not entitled to Red Cross visititation, which the ICRC actually did obtain a year after it's establishment. The US Government "rejected" their findings that they were engaged in "humiliating acts" (According the New York Times.)

 

My assertion that the executive intended to do this as long as it could comes from the fact that they fought it all the way to Supreme Court for three years, and in this time, not once did they consult the legislature for the legal authority to try the "enemy combatants" as they saw fit.

 

Furthermore, their assertion that "unlawful combatants" are not covered under Geneva is just wrong. There is such a thing as an "unlawful combatant" but even they are covered under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

 

In other words, at every step of the way the Bush Administration has chosen to defend Camp X-Ray in it's present operating condition as opposed to viewing it as a "necessary evil" until some framework was establish. They have never claimed anything other than that the "Authorization For Use of Force" amounts to giving George Bush a blank check to conduct the war on terror.

 

Therefore there is evidence that the US intended to hold those detained at Gitmo, as they were (which is, without representation, recourse, our monitoring outside of the military.) (The ICRC does not publicize it's findings - it deals directly with Governments, and did not "tell" on the Nazi's for the Holocaust. They would not SAY if people were being tortured at Gitmo.)

 

Of course, it's impossible to ascribe motives with accuracy - but their actions certainly indicate that the US Government was attempting to take the actions I described.

 

As for the thing about the fingernails - the point is that it's ironic to be denying people due process and civil liberties in order to preserve due process and civil liberties. It has nothing to do with HOW I torture you.

 

Fundamental Truth (I Think)

If you ever encounter a law or regulation which gives people the possibility of abusing it, and upon having this pointed out to them they say "Yeah, but we'd never use it that way!" the chances are good that they already are, or at least intend to use it in exactly that way.

 

TFS

[Cedars]

The legal system was only Aloud to be put in place when the public was made aware of the prison. Do you believe.. REALLY believe... that any sort of justice would have been made available to those prisoners had this not been the case? I for one do not. It was just WAY too tempting a situation, having a place to hold prisoners that was not subject to the nagging restrictive justice system. Need to question a prisoner? No problem, but first lets soften him/her up a bit by "Distressing" him/her. there is no advocate outside the system watching us, so lets really get some information out of this fella. We are certain he is guilty after all.

 

2-5 years and many many interrogations later.... they release release him...how freaking joyous. Jump up and down everybody.. the US has been magnanimous once again. It seems the public is becoming aware of this situation.. best start watching ourselves.

 

The depth of possibilities for a system to be abusive, that has no monitoring, is staggering.

 

Gitmo and its detention facility was never a secret.

 

Yes, lets make sure these people captured while fighting for a non-recognised governement which supports terrorist bin Laden, al zaquari, or a host of other terrorist organisations are not a danger to the world before we let them go. 2-4 years and being released before the fight is over is a lucky break for them. They are not being held in Rickers Island, they are being held by the military. Rules are different for the military. Bummer for the terrorists. *shrug*

 

I would also refer you to Zacarias Moussaoui, the terrorist who was incarcerated right after 9/11 as the 20th hijacker and how long it took for that to be resolved in the US courts as an example of how this can take a very long time to be resolved even when it is under the open juristiction of US courts.

 

?? Because he decided to act like those American Troublemakers fleeing Tijuana? He evaded and avoided laws he found inconvenient.

 

Yep! Maybe the David Hicks and John Walker Lindhs of the world should pay attention before leaping off the ledge into the abyss. Bummer for them. Kinda sucks for the terrorists when altrusim gets tossed aside for the actions not being reciprocal eh?

 

What indications? Information the government is releasing?

New situations do demand new laws, that much is self evident. So the best way to create these new laws it so... hide the fact that your are circumventing existing ones?

 

Our government does have the right to interpret the laws bearing on circumstances when clear cut definitions do not exist and this governments approach is being wrestled about within the courts. These people in Gitmo do not fall under the definition of soldier, unless they were residents of Afghanistan at the time of their capture, as I understand past rulings. As far as hiding the fact we have taken illegal combatants into custody sorry, but that has not been hidden. The rest of them, well the wheels of justice do turn slowly when you are a undealt with faction of the law. Such is the way it has always worked.

 

 

You are correct, nobody wants these terrorists back on the streets.

Who decides which people? Somebody does, they do it out of public view, and I would guess they do it without due process.

 

Lots of people decide, most assuridly the governments of each of the detainees.

From almost year ago:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/04/AR2005080402125.html

 

I doubt any freedom fighter that volunteers to actually fight for these folks cares one iota about what country the US will be stomping around in. It is not a deterrent, and may even serve to attract a certain element to it.

 

Good then let them figure out Gitmo is the prize that awaits them and not 72 raisin covered virgins.... or something like that :) * I have been told the 72 virgins awaiting martyrs is a misinterpretation of the Koran.

 

Hicks is hardly a poster boy for who should be released, but he certainly serves as a center point on how public awareness helps to force proper due process, whether the government wants it or not.

 

Due process is needed, but it takes time. I would rather be assured this group of terrorists isnt able to take up arms again. I value my own freedom more than theirs. Bummer for them, but Hicks should have stayed home and he wouldnt be in Gitmo.

 

Absolutely. I agree whole-heartedly.

The US's choice in how they handled this situation has caused enough of an international uproar that it has Finlay made the world realize that the rules have to change, because if they do not, even countries like the United States will feel justified in using methods that circumvent almost every aspect of what makes them a free country.

 

Yep, in the infamous words of the Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after Pearl Harbor "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."

 

Too bad BHLs tend to muck up the clarity with ideas that every terrorist is a ballet dancer waiting to be freed... *kidding around some here.

 

Sadly, I agree that a place like this needs to exist, but it needs to be public, visible to advocates for the prisoners, and have a due proccess in place.

 

It needs to be moved th US soil, or it is nothing less then a total violation of what the US stands for.

If the legal system can not handle it, then perhaps such a place on US soil would force appropriate changes to be made.

 

Nah, I am quite comfortable sleeping at night with Gitmo holding these persons. I dont want to 'force changes' I want to be assured that the way we deal with terrorist suspects or convicts is as air tight as possible, so that once resolution is made there wont be any slip ups and freedom granted to a guilty party due to some techicallity that was overlooked due to pressures to "hurry it along so Amnesty Int. stops writting letters" types of errors.

 

I see efforts to resolve the Gitmo/detainee issues that both meets court rulings in a timely manner but attempts to prevent terrorists from rejoining the fight. Neither side has perfected this yet, but its not like things are not being done to change Gitmo.