Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mojo_PeiPei
I still don't get how the Guantanmo Bay detentions stand as arbitrary. When you are arrested as an illegal combatant, which would provide for much gray area for "criminal status", you don't have to necessarily be afforded the right to a public trial.
|
First, I see no functioning reasonable review process that demonstrates that the prisoners at Guantanmo Bay are anything that the Administration says that they are at all. As far as I can tell, they are arbitrary people who the Administration says are bad, who they feel free to torture, imprision, and hold for an arbitrary period of time, with (up until this point) only kangeroo court juristiction (I'm sorry Mr Judge, but you aren't rolling over -- you are fired and replaced with someone else...)
Quote:
|
Now perhaps someone can help me make sure I am up to speed on this, but the latest supreme court ruling effectively upholds the detentions still, only it allows the detainee's to challenge their status, correct?
|
It states, narrowly, that the current review system is insufficient. It does not state what review system would be sufficient, it just states that the current review system is not. And without sufficient review, it states that those held must be able to require the government demonstrate a god damn justification for why they are being held in prison for an indefinite period.
You do know that this is what the court cases are about? Not about torture -- just "you haven't even STATED and PROVEN why these people are being held". The prisoners are completely arbitrarily. Some functionary said "keep this person in jail", and based off nothing but that they are in jail for an indefinite period.
Quote:
|
Still the point of contention seems to be that people don't think the US military should be allowed to "arrest" people as illegal combatants. The catch with that issue is that there is no codified means of determining what makes one's status illegal, rather it is determined by a treaty one century old and what isn't codified in treaties such as geneva.
|
As it stands, the US holds that the President can, with no real review, state that anyone* the president chooses falls outside the scope of all rights and treaty obligations, and treat them however the President wants.
* This being limited to non-US citizens is possibly true. Hence the "rest of the world: fuck you".
Also note that the US holds that it has the right to invade other countries, kidnap people there, and do with them as they please. This isn't "other countries that are terrorist havens" -- it fucking happened in
Italy, while one branch of the US government was tracking down someone with the help of the Italian government, another jumped in and kidnapped (while speaking openly over Company cell phones, idiots) someone.
Quote:
|
Again, if the courts state the men are allowed to challenge their status, would that not mean that Habeas stands? If that is the case, which the SC's decision seems to point to, I would take that as a big example that the detentions at Guantanamo Bay are completely legal and not arbitrary... so long as they allow the challenges to status.
|
There has been no actual challenge to their status allowed in open court. Many of the people there have been detained for 5+ years, with no access to real lawyers, no access to courts, arbitrary abuse by people who consider them to have absolutely no rights under any treaty or law...
Or am I in error?
Has the US not bagged the heads of "bad people", made them form human periods, attached electrodes to the penis and balls of prisoners, and
fucking photographed them and bragged about it? Has the US Senate not passed a bill saying "so long as you don't torture Americans, go ahead and make your own decisions about how far you can go Mr President. Do whatever you want. We place no limits on what you do to non-Americans"? Has the US Congress and Senate not sat idly by as the US executive branch has claimed the right to imprison without trial, without review, without access to law, any foreign individual that the US executive branch feels like imprisoning, for as long as the US executive branch feels like?
So I say again: have I misread the "FUCK YOU" that the US government, the agent of the people, is sending the entire fucking world?
I need to know. Elections are coming up, and there are various parties. Some want to continue supporting missions that help the US government, and not say "fuck you" to the US government. Others want to withdraw all help to the US government's military adventures abroad.
You may or may not care -- but right now, Canadian troops are engaged in the hottest part of Afghanistan, with fatality rates that exceed any other military organization engaged in US-allied military adventures. Is the US saying "fuck you" to me? I have an election to prepare for.