Justice in Guantanamo Bay?
 

It appears that trials of a sort (Don't know if they can be described as trials) have been proposed for the detainees of Guantanamo Bay.

Here is an article (don't take too much notice of the headline, there isn't too much of Britain blasting the US in there) describing the process. There has been interest here in Australia about the fate of David Hicks, who is featured in this article. By interest, i mean of the people, not of the government, as our Prime Minister is ignoring the whole issue.

link...

Anyway, some conditions of the proposed trials:

- Seven member tribunal, only one of which is required to have legal training.
- Rules of evidence do not apply
- No right to confer privately with his lawyers or appeal if found guilty
- Release is not guaranteed if suspect is found not guilty

There is also question over the possible use of capital punishment.

So what do you think? Could this possibly be called justice? Does anyone think this is right?

(Also, please keep in mind that this is proposed, and not a sure thing)

wtf happened to international laws? this is fucken BS is gwb doesnt have to follow any laws/treaties just by calling them "detainees". trust me, this can also be used against us. US has troop presense almost everywhere on earth.

"Release is not guaranteed if suspect is found not guilty" - then what's the purpose of the trial?? they're back in square one - being held indefinately w/o counsel.

i'll bet u almost anything, most these people have nothing to do w/ what happened on 911. we just went over there and took 'em in.

Just keep pouring out your bleeding heart Dude, these people wouldn't think twice about killing you or anyother Westerner. These people are ruthless cowards who are finallying going to get what they deserve.

*dons asbestos suit, and sprays down the thread with flame retardant chemicals.

That done...i think its grand that the pinacle of justice in America is secret military executions in a communist island. Apparently, irony is still dead.

Not trying them in the open is a big mistake...since it will only fuel suspicion of our motives and means, at home and abroad.

Yeah, but if they're proven innocent, they're still held in custody...

Maybe we should turn them (all of them- not just the ones "qualifying" for tribunal) over to the victims of terrorism? Mob justice might be more appropriate.

Who do you think you are? I bet you cant name one prisoner in Guantanamo (no google!)

The distance between America's fanatics and Al-Qaeda's fanatics is getting smaller and smaller.

al-qaeda's would like to murder everyone they hate, including you. Second i would question, if that artical is completly accurate, or if its just some inflated story.

I didn't say American victims of terrorism. I can't name any victims of terrorism, either.

International law doesn't apply to them, because the international law says it doesn't, which is why they're called illegal combatants, and which is why we can and should do what we are. The military knows its shit, let them do their jobs.

That may very well be, you could certainly make that arguement. However, these people deserve a fair trial because they are human beings, to me that is one of the central ideas behind the United States.

And the little girl walking down the street doesn't deserve to be blown up by a martyr for allah. Personally, I'd prefer my government protect Americans rather then foriegners.

it's not the military that made this distinction. it's the civilians in the executive branch (namely gwb and his cabinet) that made this choice.

military did an excellent job of fighting this war and capturing this alleged terrorists.


these people are human. and i think all


that article 11 from the UN charter. the treatment of the "illegal combatents" clearly violates this. they are considered guilty until proven innocent, and even AFTER being proven innocent, they are still considered guilty.

FYI, you do not get sent to G'bay just for nothing; you get send there because US soldiers saw you trying to plant a bomb, or ambush their convoy. They are the ENEMY in a war on terror. As such, they do not deserve a fair trial like you and me - they deserve a military tribunal, like any soldier. In fact, being illegal combatants, and murderous bastards, they deserve a headshot straight away!

Anyway... these are the type of "soldiers" that torture and execute US soldiers, and celebrate such acts by dragging the mutilated bodies through the streets (somalia). Frankly, I don't give a rat's arse about their human rights. Screw them.

(/rant)

It shits me that an Australian David Hicks is to be tried at Guantanamo Bay whilst Americans caught in the same circumstances are tried in US courts. What a surprise that the Johnny Howard/Dubya kissy kissy bullshit special relationship does bugger all for the civil rights of Australian citizens.

Well... the US captured them. US nationals have to be tried in US courts (having US constitutional rights and such), while foreigners do not. Australia might have asked for extradition, though - it might have worked.

FYI, the UK also has the same problem - one of their people was captured too. No complaints or extradition requests.

I suspect the Australian and UK government are secretly quite happy to have the US prosecute these guys - otherwise, they'd have to do it themselves, and get the associated flak from human rights campaigners and extremists alike.

First, there are no Somalis in Gitmo.

Second, you are starting to sound just like "them". The reason the US is greatest nation on Earth is that we hold ourself to a higher standard. If these people are guilty, they should be found guilty by a court of law and executed. if not they should be sent home.

What is so wrong with applying the same legal standard to them? What are we afraid we might find?

Doesn't matter, because it was an *example*. It is commenly understood that Al-Qaida was a major instigator of those Somali riots. Furthermore, in Afghanistan, Al-Qaida/Taliban guys executed quite a few prisoners of war, including at least one US soldier, who fell from a helicopter. Some of the G'bay prisoners have openly threatened to kill their US guards, and any US person they can get their hands on.

If you want to fight "them", you have to fight *like* them. And the US is NOT the greatest nation on earth, the Netherlands is. :)

I don't think there's anything we'll find when we send them to jail - it's just that we don't *have* to send them to jail, because of their legal status. In fact, back in the olde days (2nd World War), spies and saboteurs would probably have been executed right away. These terrorists are a different case altogether, because we cannot execute them (they'd be "martyrs"), we cannot set them free (they'll kill us), and we cannot put them in an ordinary prison (too dangerous). G'bay is the best solution.

The fact of the matter is that I'm getting a bit fed up with all this touchy-feely stuff we Westerners are supposed to do, while a bunch of ignorant extremists from the middle-of-nowhere try to kill us all. If they want to fight us, I suggest we give them the fight they want. And I can guarantee that such a war will be rather nasty - contrary to what these guys seem to think, Westerners are not weak and scared - we have a LOT of experience in fighting, way more than they can ever dream of...

what is the purpose of surrendering then, if you are basically going to be executed or held in captivity indefinately?

Who said these guys surrendered at all? They could have been captured without a formal surrender. Hell, judging from the recent captured Al-Qaida members, they do not at all like to surrender, and often only give up (or are forced to give up) after a long gun-fight.

you dont know that for certain. we dont even know if they are all guilty for certain either.

that's why you need a trial.

Justice would be martyring every one of them, not letting them loose thanks to our buggy justice system.

OJ Simpson is more innocent than those held in Guantanamo Bay.

and how can you be certain of that?

Wrong - There are major complaints from MP's - over 170 of them have signed at a complaint saying that it is wrong not to give them a fair and open trial. Also there are two Brits being detained.

Blair hasn't said anything about this as he is so far up Bush's arse that we can no longer even see his feet !

http://www.mmstudios.net/images/propset/e.chair-3.jpg

http://www.guillotine.net/bilder2/galges1x.jpg

http://www.brianwillson.com/images/kp3.jpg

If found guilty, line em up.

Amen brother!

No. Soldiers who fought against the Russians in Afghanistan helped train Somalis to use RPGs to shoot down helicopters. They did not incite rioting in Somalia.

Neil Roberts died fighting for the principles the country was founded on and the oath he took to uphold the constitution. Now we are being told the US can waive those rights simply by declaring a person an illegal combatant? Where is the legal precedent for declaring them such? Rather than charging these people with war crimes, as should be done, we have created a legal shell game in which we just warehouse them until an administration with enough balls to actually solve the problem comes along.

As far as prisoners making threats to kill people, I point you to your nearest maximum security prison...

No, we don't. We hold to the Geneva convention and the Law of Land Warfare. We fight fair, honest, and with the utmost regard to the safety of innocents. We still kick ass every time.

PS - Number of times the Netherlands has liberated the US = 0. ;)

Seeing as how most of their names aren't even known, ow would hey be martyrs? Just try them and either let them go or punish them based on the severity of their crime. By changing the standard we only do two things:

1. Reinforce what radical muslims already think about the US (that we are out to get them), and

2. Let them win by forcing the US to curtail its liberties, thus becoming just a bit more like them.

Well, if we are going to lower ourselve to their level, why bother even fighting? We can just join them now and hack each other apart with machetes all day. Remember why it is that we are refered to as the "civilized world" in the first place...

My take on things: The US arrests people, and puts them in a prison camp. The camp holds about 600 people. If the US were to pick up random people, there would have been many more in G'bay. Obviously, they're picking up a select few only.

Judging from the background of this whole war on terror, I suspect most, of not all of those in that camp are guilty of some pretty horrid crimes. You don't get send there for just insulting someone, or even threatening to kill someone; you get send there for actively waging a terror campaign against the anyone on the planet that doesn't share your narrowminded worldview. This is a crime punishable by death in both my book, and quite a lot of law books.

The US could have shot each and every one of these people, and nobody would have cared one bit; they'd have been nameless corpses somewhere in a far-away country. However, because of the background, these suspects are rounded up for interrogation, and to keep them out of harm's way. If the US were to try them, they might be acquitted and released, even if they later prove to be guilty (OJ is a good example of how things can go wrong). If the US were to kill them, they'd lose potential information, and quite a lot of PR. Therefore, the guys are kept in prison until the war is over, or at least until it has died down a bit. Then, they might be put on trial.

Given that we are at war with a brutal enemy, cowardly enough to hide amongst the innocent, we have to bend, or even break the rules a little to be able to fight them. I am willing to accept that. Other people here seem to believe we can win a war by playing fair, and upholding each and every law in the book just because we're the good guys. Well, I think there are no good guys in this war, only guys trying to stay alive and reach their objective. Our objective is to survive this onslaught and preserve our way of life; the terrorist's objective is to scare us into submission and eventually to take over the world, driving us back into the dark ages.

I'd like all humans to be friendly and happy, but the reality is different. If I have to choose, I'd choose to stick up for yours truly and friends, rather than for some nameless person in a country on the other side of the world. Tough luck.

Dragonlich,

My concern is that the people who were involved in overt acts of combat were shot in the head already. Then the soldiers went into the nearest house and took someone's cousin on "suspicion". Now they are interogating people to find out where more terrorists are located or operating.

Of course, neither of us know since we aren't there, lawyers aren't there, and family members aren't there.

You have the luxury of stating "we have to bend, or even break the rules a little to be able to fight them. I am willing to accept that." because, last time I checked, Netherlands wasn't heavily militarily involved in this.

It's my country's head that is going on the chopping block when something goes awry, my country that is taking the international heat, my country that is going to be the target of further acts of aggression due to misperceptions of injustices done to these detainees.

With all due respect to your opinions, my country's soldiers are holding these detainees, my country's soldiers are dying at the rate of one per day (with a significant number of British soldiers, as well), and my country that is taking the lead in this campaign. So, your willingness to take "risks" with my country's reputation, use (or abuse) of its legal technicalities, and etc. doesn't put much of your interests up at stake.

Think about that.

what i dont get is, why arent they giving the rights of war criminals or pow's.

if they do get a fair trial, does the administration have a chance of losing?

Smooth, just for the record: My country *is* putting people in danger. We are currently actively involved in the war on terror. Our navy is patrolling in the Persian Gulf (edit: duh!) in search of WMDs and terrorists, our soldiers are patrolling the streets of Kabul alongside the Germans, and our soldiers are going into Iraq soon, to support the US there. Oh, and with Rotterdam being one of the most important ports in Europe, we could be a prime terrorist target. So, er... you're wrong. ;)

Debaser: think about that? I did. Last time I checked, our way of life didn't involve bending over while a bunch of savages fucks us up the arse. The people over here are not a bunch of pacifists, nor does our culture involve ignoring problems until they blow up in our faces...

Just to refresh your memory: you *lost* in Vietnam because the enemy wouldn't fight fair. Terrorists are even worse, because at least the Vietnamese were confined to a certain geographical location. Modern terrorists can be anywhere, and there aren't many legal ways of stopping them. In fact, in *my* country, it is pretty hard to put someone in jail for plotting to blow something up - we'll need to introduce anti-terror laws to be able to do that... Until then, we cannot even use information from the secret service (CIA/FBI combo) as evidence!

My comments referred to Guantanamo Bay and your position that you are willing to bend the rules there even though the consequences of that will fall on our heads--not yours.

So your litany of military interation elsewhere doesn't change or refute what I wrote.

Who is bending over? If you hadn't noticed, the US just took over two countrys. We are perfectly able, with our preponderence of force, to defend our interests and still uphold our ideals. It just takes a little more work, but America did not get where it is by being lazy.

No, we lost in Vietnam because the military was not allowed to fight the war. Clemenceau was wrong on that account. Once a nation decides to go to war, it is imperative that it is left to the military to decide the best course of action. The same holds true in this case. Let the military deal with these prisoners, either as prisoners of war or war criminals. Holding them indefinately is akin to hostage taking, and is counter-productive in the long run.

Hell, you started about losing soldiers... My government is supporting the US in the war on terror, just like we supported you in the war in Iraq, and are supporting you in the aftermath. We have a large Muslim sub-population, some of whom are actively involved in extremist groups. We stand to lose as much as you.

And FYI, I don't think any extremist will think your imprisoning extremists in G'bay as excessive, or reason to attack you further. They already hate you and want you all dead; injustice in G'bay does not change that at all. It's just an excuse for more US-bashing (and worse).

This implies that you believe Americans to be better than the rest of the world by virtue of them being American. Seriously, do you believe that Americans are genetically superior? Why do you think Americans are more deserving of basic human rights than anyone else?

Perhaps you dont believe in the right to a fair trial? There used to be a place for that kind of thinking, it was SOVIET RUSSIA.

I concur, IF they are found guilty - so lets give them trials and find out!

If someone is enthusiastic about murdering me and/or my family they are being treated to well if they aren't being caused pain or death. Unless of course my family and/or I have done something tremendously horrid.

No it doesn't, it implies he believes our government should place far more concern in the wellbeing of its own citizens than in the well being of others, particularly those who would seek to destroy it. I think that is right...

That is why I am opposed to AA. We shouldn't be lowering the bar for them, just because they are minorities doesn't mean they are defective and they aren't being culturally held back, there is no need for assistance or dramatically increased sensitivity to any race related issues dealing with minorities.

er....there are lots of people who hate the american way of life and would do things if they had the chance.

they have the right to think whatever they want. but, we can only take action against them if they take action against us.

we just cant go all over the world pickin up peeps who hate us and want to kill us.

Hence the phrase, "Peace through power".