dc_dux

Persons held at Gitmo are not military personnel....they are "enemy" non-combatants..and Bush has attempted to define that status in the most restrictive terms possible with regard to any rights under US law or treaty obligations.

My understanding of how this has played out:

Bush first attempted to make the case that they had no rights under the Constitution because they were not being held on US soil and the US had no sovereignty over Gitmo (Cuba still maintains sovereignty).

The USSC said NO....the US has jurisdiction over Gitmo (as a result of treaty w/Cuba) so non-combatants have rights.

As a result of that decision, Bush brought the Republican Congress into the act.

Then came the "military tribunals or commissions" as defined in the Detainee Treatment Act.....it did not provide the detainees with direct access to the federal courts, but only with access to a fair and impartial hearing to a tribunal constitutionally authorized by Congress and proceeding with certain due process guarantees comparable to the UCMJ or the terms of the Geneva Conventions.

The USSC said NO again....and struck it down because it failed to meet that test of providing rights comparable to the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions.

So Bush and hs friends in Congress tried again with the Military Commissions Act.

The USSC said NO for a third time and ruled that detainees have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in civilian courts...including the right to habeas corpus.

And I would point readers again to the fact that a large number of the detainees (hundreds?) were not terrorists or enemy non-combatants or even guilty of anything at all but being caught up in a sweep or turned in by a neighbor for cash....and after as many as 4+ years in Gitmo w/o being charge, w/o access to legal counsel, family or anyone, had no virtually rights at all.

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that.... according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

See: America's prison for terrorists often held the wrong men

This is a very good and straight forward graphic on Detainees and the Rule of Law (pdf)


added...on the issue of torture:

The Senate Armed Services Committee is beginning hearings today to review the origins of Bush's policies regarding torture.

ooops...I should say "enhanced interrogation techniques"...we all know that the US doesnt torture...because Bush/Cheney/Rice/Mukasey say we dont and since Bush has unilaterally defined "enhanced interrogation techniques" ....we should take their word for it?

The Committee is still demanding the appearance of John Woo, the DoJ official who wrote the infamous "justification for torture" memo that has guided the Bush policy....torture is defined as resulting in death, organ failure or serious impairment of body functions"...anything else is acceptable.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire