Has the US Supreme Court overstepped its bounds on this one? Have they dealt the "serious blow to the credibility of the Bush Administration" that some political analysts are claiming? Or is this a victory for the libertarians and their championing of "human rights abuses at Guantanamo Bay" cause?
My own opinion on this whole saga is that after 4-and-a-half years its about time that many of these suspects were given access to a fair trial. There is no way under US Civil Law, and Im pretty sure under the US Military Code of Justice (but I'll stand corrected on this by serving members of the US military) that any citizen would have to spend that length of time before facing trial... let alone spending a majority of that time in solitary confinement for periods of up to 22 hours per day.
Are the persons held at Guantanamo guilty or not? Who knows? No-one has yet to see the evidence against them (including their own defence counsels). If they are guilty, then the full force of law should be applied to them. However, the full force of the law also demands a speedy.. and most importantly, fair.. trial.
When it comes down to political leaders and their treatment of this matter, I believe they have been naive to think that they can side-step basic common law rights towards the suspects. Setting aside US law (which I will admit to having little-to-zero knowledge of), I find it appalling that an Australian citizen can be abandoned by our government in the extent that David Hicks has been. This is a man who, even by our own Prime Minister's admission, has broken no Australian or International Law and yet our government refuses to stand up to George Bush in the same manner that Tony Blair did for the UK detainees at Camp Delta. Have the British suddenly become part of "the Axis of Evil" because they insisted that their citizens held at Guantanamo Bay be released into the British Justice system? No. Has the US Government spoken of any betrayal of the "Coalition of the Willing" by Britain, and included the UK with France, Germany, Russia et al in their stance against 'The War On Terror', for taking action that allow its citizens access to speedy legal trials? No.
But John Howard, Australian Prime Minister, claims he has 'airtight legal opinion' that the military commission that would be the basis of David Hicks' trial is "fair, and fully allowed under the US Constitution". Perhaps he should publicly release this legal opinion, because it sure seems that the US Supreme Court (after months of debate over this matter) have not been made aware of it, and in fact have ruled the complete opposite.
Thoughts/opinions/comments, the floor is now open for discussion.
[Edit:] Corrected several typos and, I hope, improved some grammatical errors Cavalier- fucked around with this message on 06-30-2006 at 03:25 AM.
They are not covered under our bill of rights, however we accord them basic human respect. I can assure you that for every sensationalist media story about the 'atrocities' in GITMO, there are at least 100 decent, good people who are NOT the conniving, torturing, cannabalistic nutjob the liberal media wants them to be. I know some of the folks working down there, and they are in a high stress environment but they handle the stress well, and they do not abuse the detainees.
quote:
There is no way under US Civil Law, and Im pretty sure under the US Military Code of Justice (but I'll stand corrected on this by serving members of the US military) that any citizen would have to spend that length of time before facing trial... let alone spending a majority of that time in solitary confinement for periods of up to 22 hours per day
It really depends on the severity of the crime according to the UCMJ. Hell, there's a claus that is basically elastic, so if you piss someone off bad enough, they can punish you for crossing your eyes.
One reason military trials are so speedy is because of something called Non-Judicial Punishment, or NJP. Basically, this is where the member is hauled up in front of the old man (CO, Skipper, Captain, etc), who is judge, jury, and executioner. There are set punishments that can be meted out (I'm talking from a navy standpoint, other services may be different) such as 45/45 (45 days extra duty, 45 days restriction to base/ship/barracks, forfeiture of pay for half the month for up to two months, and in the most severe cases, bread and water diet for up to 3 days.
I can guarentee that if this type of justice were handed out to the detainees, people would be rioting in the streets.
Keep in mind that these people are being held due to suspected ties to terrorism. Despite what the media would have you believe, life down there is not that bad. Three squares a day, clothing, shelter, and granted, it isnt the place they would like to be, but hell, they're getting free medical care without having to pay our taxes.
If these people want to claim POW status, then in my opinion, we should treat them like POWs.
quote:
Geneva Convention, Article 5Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.
These guys are calling for civil court or military courts-martial.
quote:
Genever Convention, Article 118Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities.
We are still engaged in active hostilities. There is nothing in the convetion that outright says that we have to release POW's before the close of hostile action.
quote:
Azakias stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
They are not covered under our bill of rights, however we accord them basic human respect.
Actually non-US nationals are in fact covered by the bill of rights.
quote:
This insanity brought to you by Suddar:
As soon as you bitch about the liberal media, your argument loses all credibility.
If you're ignorant enough to think that any news source is unbiased, your argument loses all credibility.
(and when I say "your," I'm speaking generally. dont just mean u parce okok)
quote:
Mr. Parcelan likes to say stupid stuff like:
If you're ignorant enough to think that any news source is unbiased, your argument loses all credibility.
If you're ignorant enough to think any main stream news media has any motivation beyond making money, your argument never had any credibility in the first place.
did i do this rite
Suddar fucked around with this message on 06-30-2006 at 12:29 PM.
Anyway, Cavalier put a lot of effort into this thread so I'm gonna stop shitting it up now. I don't really have anything to contribute so bye 
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Blindy. absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
If you're ignorant enough to think any main stream news media has any motivation beyond making money, your argument never had any credibility in the first place.
Uh, you do know that pandering to particular ideological subsets of the population is a good way to make money, right?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's got nothing.Uh, you do know that pandering to particular ideological subsets of the population is a good way to make money, right?
Yes. But the idea that the media is forwarding an insiduous socialist agenda because they're commies or something is absurd.
quote:
Blindy. has sealed the pact
Yes. But the idea that the media is forwarding an insiduous socialist agenda because they're commies or something is absurd.
I'm not particularly surprised you immediately leap to paranoia upon paranoia theories, but I'll take the opportunity to point out that I didn't name any news source specifically.
I suggest you take some time to think before you type if you want to be allowed in discussions.
So it's not the huge smoking gun that the US is committing human rights violations that some particularly rabid idiots have chosen to believe. It has to do with separation of powers within the US government more than anything else.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
I like it when Mr. Parcelan says:
I'm not particularly surprised you immediately leap to paranoia upon paranoia theories, but I'll take the opportunity to point out that I didn't name any news source specifically.I suggest you take some time to think before you type if you want to be allowed in discussions.
huh?
quote:
How.... Blindy..... uughhhhhh:
huh?
I'm sending you to Parcetanamo Bay.
quote:
A sleep deprived Bloodsage stammered:
Unfortunately, the title of the thread expresses exactly what's wrong with this discussion: the decision was more of a procedural one defining separation of powers than it was about detainee rights. As proof, you'll note that the Court specifically said Congress could authorize the proceedings if they chose.So it's not the huge smoking gun that the US is committing human rights violations that some particularly rabid idiots have chosen to believe. It has to do with separation of powers within the US government more than anything else.
Right. What they essentially indicated was NOT that you couldn't hold prisoners like that, it was that the President couldn't decide for himself that he has the powers to hold prisoners like that; IE he wasn't given a "blank check" to do absolutely anything. The President is not given unlimited unilateral power to do whatever to whoever in the name of his situation, he still has to ask permissions from the Legislative branch to do certain things.
BUT...they still can be done, if you can get the controls in place modified.
Further, it puts things nicely in Bush's court if you think about it. If Congress does give him the powers, then he'll just say he was doing things okay after all, just hadn't dotted the I's and crossed the T's. If they don't give him the power, you can just blame the other side anyway and roll the blame off elsewhere.
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
