US Allies with North Korea, Myamar and Cuba

spongebob

....along with China these are the unholy alliance that denies Amnesty International permission to observe trials to ensure that they are conducted with some semblance of fairness. Story Here

"Amnesty International spokesman Alistair Hodgett said the US State Department annually criticises other countries for closing trials to international monitors.

"It seems like that medicine can't be taken at home despite us prescribing it abroad," he said. " "

M

Victor

From the article:

Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and Human Rights First were told there was not enough courtroom space.

.....

In a letter to Human Rights Watch, Air Force Brigadier General Thomas Hemingway said no charges had yet been approved and no location yet designated for the trials.

But he admitted seating would be limited if the tribunals are held at the US naval station on Guantanamo Bay.

The concept of get a bigger room comes to mind. :rolleyes:

Sand

And France allied itself with Russia ( Chechnya ), China ( Tibet/Religious oppression/ communism ) and Syria ( Dictatorship ) on its stance on the Iraq war.

Whats your point?

Amnesty International has no power to ensure trials are held with any semblence of fairness. Theyre merely observers. A role, which might hopefully be filled by the Red Cross which is represented along with some journalists has a certain role with regards to POWS / enemy combatants.

Just because Amnesty International are in a big sulk over not getting an invite doesnt imply that the Red Cross are somehow the country bumpkin hicks with regard to courtroom proceedings or in George Bushes pocket. Are the Red Cross not international observers? Hell, Amnesty International hasnt even been denied access, theyve simply been told they cant be guaranteed a seat when the venue for any trial hasnt even been chosen. Keee-rist what a put down. They practically ripped up the UN charter there didnt they? Hell, with the overstatement dripping out of that article you might as well claim they gave the nazi salute to the Amnesty crowd.

The concept of get a bigger room comes to mind.

When is the line of practicality crossed given that a hell of a lot of people would like to sit in on trials as controversial as these?

spongebob

Originally posted by Sand
When is the line of practicality crossed given that a hell of a lot of people would like to sit in on trials as controversial as these?

When the USMC gets its finger outta its ass and Builds a bigger Courtroom. It can all be fitted on pallets in the back of a C130 and flown to Guantanamo .

I bet 'selected journalists' such as Fox News won't get bumped in favour of Amnesty INternational . That would be taking the 'justice must be seen to be done' adage much too far for the US .

M

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
And France allied itself with Russia ( Chechnya ), China ( Tibet/Religious oppression/ communism ) and Syria ( Dictatorship ) on its stance on the Iraq war.

Which people (like yourself, if memory serves) were all to happy to point out and criticise France for at the time.

But now you seem to think that because France did this it is somehow hypocritical for those who have a problem with the US "alliance" to make similar criticisms?

Whats your point?

Sauce for the goose......

Theyre merely observers.

Yes - observers who are specialised in Human Rights, and observers whom the US has criticised other countries for excluding from trials before because their deliberate omission calls into doubt the aspects of the trial they are supposed to be observing for fairness.

A role, which might hopefully be filled by the Red Cross which is represented along with some journalists has a certain role with regards to POWS / enemy combatants.

Ahhh yes....journalists. Whatever about the Red Cross, offering journalists as an alternative to Human Rights experts is farcical.

Oh - and the key word in that entire quoted sentence of yours is hopefully. The Red Cross are concerned with - if I recall correctly - compliance with the Geneva Conventions. More on that further down.

doesnt imply that the Red Cross are somehow the country bumpkin hicks with regard to courtroom proceedings or in George Bushes pocket.

Perfectly correct.

Are the Red Cross not international observers?

Yes indeed they are. And they have repeatedly shown that they only ever comment on aspects which fall under their official remit. They refused to comment on various aspects of how Gitmo detainees were being held despite allegations of them being in breach of Human Rights because they were only there to observe compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

So, unlike Amnesty, they will keep their mouth shut about any perceived Human Rights violation in a trial which does not fall entirely under the limited area for which they are there to observe compliance with.

Hell, Amnesty International hasnt even been denied access, theyve simply been told they cant be guaranteed a seat

Read the first sentence of the article again Sand. They are saying that the Pentagon has turned down their request. Not put it on hold. Not said "we can't be certain". Not said "its unlikely". Refused. Turned down. Said No.

When is the line of practicality crossed given that a hell of a lot of people would like to sit in on trials as controversial as these?

The line of practicality is crossed when - as a nation - you criticise other nations for not finding space in their courtrooms for the people you've said you can't fit in yoru own.

Most people call it hypocracy.

jc

Memnoch

Originally posted by Sand
And France allied itself with Russia ( Chechnya ), China ( Tibet/Religious oppression/ communism ) and Syria ( Dictatorship ) on its stance on the Iraq war.

Whats your point?

its funny that you IGNORE the fact that the countries who opposed the war were not limited to the selective list you print above...
in fact the MAJORITY of the WORLD as well as the UN was opposed to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

however there are very few countries that follow such hypocritcal and commit such gross violation of human rights, and the U.S. despite its claim of freedom and democracy has joined this select group.

DadaKopf

Sand, you're totally missing the point.

The International Red Cross has been allowed to attend the trials because they have a strict confidentiality policy - that was the whole reason they were allowed into Guantanamo all those years ago. And, as bonkey said, they don't publish reports.

The IRC is still an internationally respected - and trusted - organisation, but their confidentiality is the price we have to pay so they can do their job. That's not at issue.

The issue is that these trials won't be open to public scrutiny. Amnesty, Human Rights Watch et al aren't allowed to attend exactly because they'll go tell everyone else. But wait, isn't public accountability the foundation America's and Europe's legal systems?

We all know how Washington has been working around the clock to eradicate public scrutiny. But public scrutiny, like it or not, is a central component of the US Constitution (Amendment VI), the UN Charter of Human Rights (Articles 10,11 & 12), the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 14), both of which the US is signed up to.

This is exactly why it's such an offensive act by Washington - sauce for the goose and all.

So, coming to your point that Amnesty International has no 'power to ensure trials are held with any semblence of fairness', I think you're wrong. As a large international organisation respected for its expert and nuanced understanding of international human rights law - alongside Human Rights Watch - they are perfectly positioned to monitor the proceedings and then convey the proceedings of the trials to the public sphere. This is what all those sections and articles, mentioned above, are all about in the first place.

But Washtington is scared at the prospects of actually having to conduct trials fairly and legally so I'd actually consider their decision to bar AI and HRW from attending as an example of AI's and HRW's power. But yes, American power still trumps them. American power trumps nearly everything so this is a moot point - power is relational, not a zero-sum game, so in terms of power, AI is much more powerful than IRC. It's incorrect to say AI has 'no power' when clearly it has some, but not all.

So what particularly pi§§es people off is America's blatant double standards. It's just another depressing example of US impunity and intransigence.

Sand

Which people (like yourself, if memory serves) were all to happy to point out and criticise France for at the time.

Its hard for me to prove a negative, but I dont recall discrediting France on the basis it shared the position of corrupt and oppressive states. I did a search under my username with France and looked back about a year ago when most of the argument over the decision to invade Iraq would have taken place and the closest I can find to it is me quoting an article "Thank God for the Death of the UN" (thread is of same title) .......

The UN needs to be reformed and given a more practical brief- its members must be held to certain standards, however loose, in terms of its citizens freedoms and political rights or not be given full representation - certainly it is ludicrous to give "Syria, Cameroon, Angola, Russia, China and France" unquestioned moral superiority in deciding critical issues, especially compared to liberal democracies who are derided because they dont go with the enlightened Chinese view:|

The countries in that quote were lifted straight from the article, I didnt associate them.

/me shrugs.

Yes - observers who are specialised in Human Rights

No disagreement there.

Ahhh yes....journalists. Whatever about the Red Cross, offering journalists as an alternative to Human Rights experts is farcical.

Of course, given that all the Amnesty crowd or the reporters can do is publicise what happened in the trials. Regardless, that sentence was badly composed by myself, Id view the red cross as being the international observers, and the journalists will also be there - to publicise what happens in the trial.

The International Red Cross has been allowed to attend the trials because they have a strict confidentiality policy - that was the whole reason they were allowed into Guantanamo all those years ago. And, as bonkey said, they don't publish reports.

They refused to comment on various aspects of how Gitmo detainees were being held despite allegations of them being in breach of Human Rights because they were only there to observe compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

They happily commented on their concerns over the Gitmo crew under the geneva convention, so Ive no doubt theyll happily issue their concerns on the conduct of the trial under their remit of the geneva convention...see below

So, coming to your point that Amnesty International has no 'power to ensure trials are held with any semblence of fairness', I think you're wrong. As a large international organisation respected for its expert and nuanced understanding of international human rights law - alongside Human Rights Watch - they are perfectly positioned to monitor the proceedings and then convey the proceedings of the trials to the public sphere. This is what all those sections and articles, mentioned above, are all about in the first place.

Yes indeed they are. And they have repeatedly shown that they only ever comment on aspects which fall under their official remit. They refused to comment on various aspects of how Gitmo detainees were being held despite allegations of them being in breach of Human Rights because they were only there to observe compliance with the Geneva Conventions.

I refer you to the Geneva Convention where if you scroll down to Chapter 3, Penal and Disciplinary Hearings, Articles 82 to 108 which covers legal rights and standards for a trial. The Geneva Convention that the Red Cross is only there to observe compliance with.

Read the first sentence of the article again Sand. They are saying that the Pentagon has turned down their request. Not put it on hold. Not said "we can't be certain". Not said "its unlikely". Refused. Turned down. Said No.

Read the article bonkey:)

The line you refer to is a *claim* by those groups that they have been turned down.

Reading a bit further down what the Pentagon said was

"A Pentagon official said some reporters and the Red Cross would get seats, but their request would be kept "in mind". "

In mind? Where did they get that from? Was that the full quote? Hmm, reading further down we see the actual hoo ha is about a letter sent by a US General in reply to a request for seating....

He said the Red Cross and journalist would be represented. He said no place of trial had yet been chosen, and no charges. He said seating would be limited.

""We will keep your request in mind should the Department of Defense be able to accommodate Human Rights Watch at military commission proceedings in the future," he added. "

So what he basically told them was - We cant guarantee there will be seats cos we dont know where it will be, we will keep you in mind when it comes to handing out seats.

The whole article is taking the amnesty groups *interpretation* and treating it as fact. Somewhere down the bottom theres what actually happened. Thats the problem with only reading the first line.

Who cares though because we can all feel outraged and throw around terms like "hypocrisy" on the basis of a hyped up article even when we get all worked up about Fox News and its "fair and balanced" portrayal of events.

Christ the irony.

And remember these are the guys who are supposed to bring out a fair and balanced viewpoint on how the trials are conducted - if this is how they operate then come back Fox News, all is forgiven.

But Washtington is scared at the prospects of actually having to conduct trials fairly and legally

Which is what the Red Cross and the Geneva Convention are there to ensure from what Ive heard myself.

So what particularly pi§§es people off is America's blatant double standards. It's just another depressing example of US impunity and intransigence.

Yeah, I find the whole thing depressing as well - all it takes is one side of the story with incomplete facts and its enough to kick up the yowling.

its funny that you IGNORE the fact that the countries who opposed the war were not limited to the selective list you print above...

Of course not - im sure if i was arsed and if there was a point to it I could list a good deal more morally questionable regimes which joined the good fight with France. But I dont see the point. Is anyone responsible for the overall conduct of nation who happen to agree with you on a specific issue - often for wholly different reasons?

Its funny youre only outraged about France being compared with less *nice* states on the basis of a position it took when you seem to have no outrage over the US being compared to less nice states on the basis of an article which is 90% hype and opinion and 10% fact. I guess even hypocrites are outraged by hypocrisy.

however there are very few countries that follow such hypocritcal and commit such gross violation of human rights, and the U.S. despite its claim of freedom and democracy has joined this select group.

Actually I dont think any country claims its citizens are unfree or unhappy - the US is no different in claiming to be a free and happy place. If the US was to bring in a law tommorrow saying that Muslims had to keep their religion in their homes there would be absolute pandemonium as the usual suspects struggled to howl their outrage to the skies at the racist imperialistic americans.

And no, Im not talking about France - they at least are principled in their laws application.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3459539.stm

Cue outrage and cries of double standards I dont think.

DadaKopf

Which is what the Red Cross and the Geneva Convention are there to ensure from what Ive heard myself.

You're still missing the point. All the Red Cross can do is say "yeah, these guys are a'ight", judging them solely on the basis of the articles of the Geneva Conventions.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong but the US has denied that these prisoners are combatants (who would then be subject to the assurances of the Geneva Conventions) and they've denied that they're being detained on US soil (which would give them full legal rights under the US Constitution). Since they're not deemed 'combatants' and don't fall under the US Constitution, they're supposed to be protected by the UN Charter on Human Rights and the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, since they're human beings an' all.

Considering this, and given that the US has perpetually fudged this issue, inventing a non-existent categorisation to justify their imprisonment, and considering the US runs the UN, I'd see it as vitally important that an organisation like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and/or the UNCHR attends the trials/tribunals.

Even if the press is allowed to attend, we can be sure they'll be carefully vetted and silenced to the gills with disclaimers, contracts, whatever.

If the only human rights organisation in attendance is one that is obliged to keep its mouth shut and isn't even tasked to observe whether the trials are fair or not, you have to wonder what use the Red Cross will be at all.

I don't really understand how your reading of the article suggests the problem's just logistical. That's just politicalese for, "Yup, that's a big ten-four, those hippe bastards ain't gettin in here, no siree Bob." We all know the pattern.

Sand

You're still missing the point. All the Red Cross can do is say "yeah, these guys are a'ight", judging them solely on the basis of the articles of the Geneva Conventions.

Im missing the point? The geneva convention includes standards for trials. Regardless of what the US believes the Red Cross are happy to say they believe the Geneva Convention applies to these Afghan/ Al Queda terrorists. The Red Cross afaik hasnt accepted the position of the US that the Geneva Convention doesnt apply. So the Red Cross will be applying the standards of the Geneva Convention to the trial and will be criticising any deviation from it as they have done in the past.....

Even if the press is allowed to attend, we can be sure they'll be carefully vetted and silenced to the gills with disclaimers, contracts, whatever.

Grand - So we can expect theyll come out with nothing negative at all about the trial, those fascist collaborating bastards. Would you then accept that if anything negative does come out its because of the commie media bias?

Just asking.

If the only human rights organisation in attendance is one that is obliged to keep its mouth shut and isn't even tasked to observe whether the trials are fair or not, you have to wonder what use the Red Cross will be at all.

Its not, it is, and quite a bit - if you trust the impartiality of the Red Cross that is.

I don't really understand how your reading of the article suggests the problem's just logistical. That's just politicalese for, "Yup, that's a big ten-four, those hippe bastards ain't gettin in here, no siree Bob." We all know the pattern.

Again, youre taking the groups interpretation as fact. These groups say they were turned down flat so goddammit they were.

What was actually said was different to what it is claimed was said - but dont let me interrupt your righteous fury at the man getting us down.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Im missing the point? The geneva convention includes standards for trials. Regardless of what the US believes the Red Cross are happy to say they believe the Geneva Convention applies to these Afghan/ Al Queda terrorists. The Red Cross afaik hasnt accepted the position of the US that the Geneva Convention doesnt apply. So the Red Cross will be applying the standards of the Geneva Convention to the trial and will be criticising any deviation from it as they have done in the past.....

Yes, but whether or not the trials violate Human Rights as engendered in teh Universal Declaration is another issue entirely, which the Red Cross will not comment on.

Furthermore, as you've pointed out, the RC have said about Gitmo that there are concerns about whether or not it complies with the GC, to which the US replied "it doesn't need to, so ya boo". However, if they said that it didn't comply with the UDHR, the US could not say the same. The point is that the RC will never make such a comment because it is outside their remit.

This is the point. The only observers who are - at this moment - given place in the trials are there to comment on compliance with one set of requirements....which is also a set of requirements that the holders of the trial deny is applicable anyway. In that case, surely it makes more sense not to have the RC there, but to have someone like Amnesty who can comment on the standards that do apply?

""We will keep your request in mind should the Department of Defense be able to accommodate Human Rights Watch at military commission proceedings in the future," he added. "

So what he basically told them was - We cant guarantee there will be seats cos we dont know where it will be, we will keep you in mind when it comes to handing out seats.

So, if someone asked me to lift their ban on the Politics forum, and I replied "I will keep your request in mind should we be able to accomodate that at some later point" would that not mean that I was turning down - at this point in time - the request? If not, then what else could it possibly mean. OK - it could mean that no decisions on lifting bans was being made at present, and their name would be added to the list.....but getting back to the real article, the sources were able to confirm that seats had been allocated, and something would have to change (such as the venue size) in order for the requests to be reconsidered.

The US is leaving itself room to reverse its position at a later stage, without offering any comittment to do so, or hope that it will happen. But right now, its answer has been no. I see no other way of interpreting the quotes that you allege are not a refusal.....but I'm sure you'll enlighten me.

jc

spongebob

That ole 'Right To Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' has kinda disappeared as well, it probably fell into a hole but the Marines will get it out again , yus suh massa boss.

M

Sand

Yes, but whether or not the trials violate Human Rights as engendered in teh Universal Declaration is another issue entirely, which the Red Cross will not comment on.

Why should they? The Red Cross verify the Geneva Convention, they are there, they believe the Geneva Convention applies and have said so - the US has disagreed, but the Red Cross retains its position. the Geneva Convention lays out the rights for defendants in trials and the Red Cross will criticise any deviation.

What exactly are the other groups going to do thats so different? The Geneva Convention is part of humanitarian law. Its specificially created for such trials.

If the other groups get in great, if they dont then thems the breaks. The Red Cross will be there and they *can* comment on the trials adherence to the Geneva Convention.

a set of requirements that the holders of the trial deny is applicable anyway.

Jeeez, I guess if the US says the Geneva Convention doesnt apply then Dada and friends here will just accept it blindly no matter what the Red Cross says. Hasnt there been debates already on the board about this?

So, if someone asked me to lift their ban on the Politics forum, and I replied "I will keep your request in mind should we be able to accomodate that at some later point" would that not mean that I was turning down - at this point in time - the request? If not, then what else could it possibly mean. OK - it could mean that no decisions on lifting bans was being made at present, and their name would be added to the list

It would depend- To complete the analogy you wouldnt have a board to ban so and so from, and assuming you did get one it would have a limited amount of people able to post - to unban so and so youd have to kick someone else out.

So yeah, you saying that youll keep the request in mind pending you actually getting a board and finding out how many people you will be able to let post there wouldnt be a nice way of saying no to my mind.

The US is leaving itself room to reverse its position at a later stage, without offering any comittment to do so, or hope that it will happen. But right now, its answer has been no. I see no other way of interpreting the quotes that you allege are not a refusal.....but I'm sure you'll enlighten me.

I cant change your mind, Weve both read the article and we take different meanings from what was said. Even if i repeat myself a dozen times youll probably still believe the General is lying and the groups assessment is wholly correct and justified.

That ole 'Right To Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness' has kinda disappeared as well, it probably fell into a hole but the Marines will get it out again , yus suh massa boss.

Maybe theyll find someones missing sense of perspective and even some balance whilst theyre looking down there too.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
Why should they?

So you're saying that you don't see any problem with there being a trial with no independant observers present to ensure that the trial does not impinge on any Human Rights.

As long as someone is there to cover something else which is vaguely related and far more limited in scope, then there's nothing to worry about.....

Fair enough.

The Geneva Convention is part of humanitarian law. Its specificially created for such trials.

Key words there : part of. The rest of humanitarian "law" will just have to go unmonitored.....but thats no big deal...its not like this whole issue has sprung up because thats exactly the point ppl are making, and because thats exactly what the US criticise other nations for.....

So yeah, you saying that youll keep the request in mind pending you actually getting a board and finding out how many people you will be able to let post there wouldnt be a nice way of saying no to my mind.

Sand - there are ppl already guaranteed their seats at the trial. So this notion that its all pending finding how many ppl can get in etc. etc. etc. is complete fiction. The general that you say I'm accusing of lying has said that the RC will get in, and that some journalists will get in. How can he possibly say that if - as you are claiming - he can't promise anyone seats because he doesn't know how much space he has.

youll probably still believe the General is lying

I don't believe for a second that the general is lying. I've never suggested that he's lying. I believe he is telling the complete truth in that he will indeed consider letting them in if and when more seats become available.

I very much doubt those seats will become available, and if they did I very much doubt that the Human Rights groups would end up getting them if they did. But thats just speculation on my part....I'd be happy to be wrong on that one.

However, at the moment, all known available seats are allocated, and the Human Rights groups were just not imporant enough to get into the trial.

Apparently, it was far more important to allow jouranlists into these trials that were so sensitive in nature that regular open trials couldn't be held.

If you can explain to me how journalists and the RC can have seats allocated under your "no court assigned so no knowledge of space availability" theory, maybe I can understand where you're coming from.

As things stand, however, I just don't understand how you can on one hand argue that the decision to allow the RC observe is a good one, and on the other hand argue that there was no rejection of the Human Rights groups because no decision has been made.

jc

Sand

So you're saying that you don't see any problem with there being a trial with no independant observers present to ensure that the trial does not impinge on any Human Rights.

Im saying that the Red Cross is specifically there to evaluate whether the trial adheres to the geneva convention which is the most suitable standard for these trials to be held to in the eyes of the Red Cross, and indeed many many critics of the US.

What are the other groups going to do? Hold it to the UN declaration of human rights -

Will they be checking that all the detainees have the right to leave the country and return home to Afghnistan ( Article 13 )?

That they have had their right to a nationality upheld ( Article 15 )?

That they had the right to marry upheld (article 16 )?

That they have had their rights to social security upheld (Article 22)?

That they have had their right to work upheld (Article 23 )?

That they have had their right to participate in the cultural life of their community (Article 27)?

The one article that does apply most clearly is article 10

"Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."

Whats a fair and public hearing? How do we define it?

From what I know, in this case the Red Cross will be looking at the very detailed standards laid down in the Geneva convention and applying them to its analysis. Theyll be its standard and definition for a fair and public hearing.

Itd be nice if the other groups are there - cant harm can it, but seeing as the declaration is general/subjective and the geneva convetion is specific/objective then I cant see it as a travesty if the Red Cross is there and other groups arent.

As long as someone is there to cover something else which is vaguely related and far more limited in scope, then there's nothing to worry about.....

I look at the Geneva Convention and i look at the Declaration - Ive got a different idea over which better fits the description vaguely related. And its not the Convention.

Key words there : part of. The rest of humanitarian "law" will just have to go unmonitored.....but thats no big deal...its not like this whole issue has sprung up because thats exactly the point ppl are making, and because thats exactly what the US criticise other nations for.....

Yeah, part of. When a guy steals a handbag we dont apply the law and procedures you might find in a high profile financial fraud case. The geneva convention is specifically designed for such trials - whats the point in creating such conventions?

I gave examples of some of the articles above .... it is no big deal that the terrorists right to marry may or may not have been upheld in the time they were held in Gitmo, or that they werent allowed to exercise their right to leave gitmo and return back to Afghanistan and join up with their taliban buddies again.

Is it?

Sand - there are ppl already guaranteed their seats at the trial. So this notion that its all pending finding how many ppl can get in etc. etc. etc. is complete fiction. The general that you say I'm accusing of lying has said that the RC will get in, and that some journalists will get in. How can he possibly say that if - as you are claiming - he can't promise anyone seats because he doesn't know how much space he has.

The Red Cross *have* to be let in afaik, and journalists are a reality - afaik he said some as well, the number of journalists doesnt sound fixed, some could mean 2-3 or 30+ depending on space. As such i doubt hes promised journalists their seats yet either.

I very much doubt those seats will become available, and if they did I very much doubt that the Human Rights groups would end up getting them if they did. But thats just speculation on my part....I'd be happy to be wrong on that one.

Indeed, but the article quoted is wholly biased towards speculation, on the part of the human rights groups, being taken as fact so no biggie. As the title of the thread implies people remember the claim, not the qualification that its speculation - If the human rights groups are allowed in I doubt well see as much attention given to reports of it.

Personally Id be happy to see them in, like i said if theres space why not? And if there isnt the Red Cross is there anyway.

However those groups are not doing themselves any favours flying off the handle or taking a letter and going completely OTT based on what at face value is an innocent enough reply - that no soilid seating plans can be made yet as there are no trials, no charges and no courtrooms assigned. Coming back and screaming about being banned from the trials on the basis of that strikes me as hysterical overreaction and doesnt bode well for their supposed impartiality and balance.

Wouldnt they be breaking the rules of this board, which recently got someone banned for a week, if they claimed theyd been denied entry on the basis of that evidence?

Apparently, it was far more important to allow jouranlists into these trials that were so sensitive in nature that regular open trials couldn't be held.

Journalists are a reality - there is at least the chance of getting the military sanitised account of whats happening in the trial, whilst the military sanitised/rights groups sanitised account will be nice also Im not stressed about getting news thats been sanitised twice over. And it satisfies the public and open part of the trial to some degree.

As things stand, however, I just don't understand how you can on one hand argue that the decision to allow the RC observe is a good one, and on the other hand argue that there was no rejection of the Human Rights groups because no decision has been made.

Im not saying its a *good* decision - Im saying that it wasnt a ban, or a denial of entry from the proceedings as claimed by the HR groups. The only group that have been planned for so far are the Red Cross and some journalists - not 10, not 15, not 50, some. This would fall into place with the claims that no courtroom has been assigned yet.

Actually from taking a second read of the article what was actually said was

"But he admitted seating would be limited if the tribunals are held at the US naval station on Guantanamo Bay."

Which would imply that if the courtrooms were used at Guantanamo there would be problems, but maybe not elsewhere.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
What are the other groups going to do?

Whatever it is that the US feels is important enough to criticise other nations for on an annual basis for excluding these groups' experts?

As has already been pointed out, the Red Cross tend to keep rather closed-mouthed about these things. From what I've been reading in some articles about this issue, they are considered unlikely to make public statements about trials at all but rather deal confidentially with governments only.

Add to that the various gag orders the US already has in place - for example journalists (who will be selected by the military from a pre-approved pool) will not be allowed to talk to defence lawyers without permission, and then only on approved topics - and it becomes clear that there is, at present, not a single, confirmed attendee who will be able to offer the public any form of open and unbiased statement about all aspects of the conduct of the trials. As I've said, the ICRC is considered too closed mouthed, and there are no other expert trial monitors on the list yet.

You criticise the human rights groups for doing themselves no favours by making a big deal out of this, but what else would you have them do? Wait until the trials start and then complain? What good can they do at that point for the people who's trials are without open, independant observation? Now is the time to make noise, and even perhaps sensationalise a bit, because its about the only way to try and put pressure on the US to give them a seat.

Wouldnt they be breaking the rules of this board, which recently got someone banned for a week, if they claimed theyd been denied entry on the basis of that evidence?

No. As I've just had to clarify in another thread, someone was banned recently for refusing to retract or offer any evidence whatsoever to back up a claim which was made. I believe thats the third time we've handed out such a ban, and each time it was for the same reason - refusal to retract or defend. We have never, that I am aware of, banned someone because we disagreed with the interpretation of events that a third party has made that they based their evidence on.

There is evidence to support the allegation that these groups have been refused entry. It may rest on a different interpretation of the story behind a news article to the one you prefer, but that doesn't make it any less valid. Or do you think we should ban anyone presenting evidence we disagree with the interpretation of? Surely that would mean that I should be challenging and banning you for your interpretation, given thet I clearly disagree with your interpretation and you haven't offered any other evidence to back up your claims. So lay off the "what would we do", because I very much doubt you even believe that we'd ban them like you're arguing.

They have requested entry. They have received a response which does not grant them entry. They are aware that other groups have been assured entry. Ergo, they have been refused in their eyes. That refusal has been couched in language that makes it non-final, but it is still a refusal, at present, in their eyes. I fully agree that its been so politely and diplomatically worded that it gives the usual wriggling room on which your interpretation is based, but personally I think Amnesty et al are doing a great job by refusing to accept that answer and are reading it for what it is most likely meant as.

I also believe that there hasn't been a single counter-statement offered by the US administration or military since the story broke denying that the groups had been refused entry as they claimed.

Could it be that they don't want to be seen making a statement (albeit one which is also full of diplomatic wriggling-room) that could imply they will be granted entry??? Or could it be that they just don't feel that criticism from three of the most respected human rights organisations on the planet is even worth dignifying wiht a response or clarification???

Personally, I think the US want to avoid the issue because if they respond to it it won't disappear as fast.

Im not saying its a *good* decision - Im saying that it wasnt a ban, or a denial of entry from the proceedings as claimed by the HR groups.

See - now even you are referring to it as a decision, despite insisting that no decision has been made

The only group that have been planned for so far are the Red Cross and some journalists - not 10, not 15, not 50, some. This would fall into place with the claims that no courtroom has been assigned yet.

Yes, and from a quick google search I've seen several reports reference the notion that the Pentagon is already establishing a pool process for the media in order to be able to cycle them through whatever space is available.....despite allegedly not knowing how many seats are available or where the trial is.

How impossible is it to conceive that the same system could be implemented for the Human Rights groups with as little as one single seat. If that meant one less seat for the journalists, then surely its not an impossible task. Unless there is only one journalist allowed in at a time.

Incidentally, you might find this backs up some of what I'm saying. Consider, why would the US build a trial facility on Guantanamo and perform a trial-run trial there, complete with security issues etc. if Guantanamo was not the intended/preferred location for a trial.

Which would imply that if the courtrooms were used at Guantanamo there would be problems, but maybe not elsewhere.

There are no courtrooms at Guantanamo. There is a room that has been converted into a trial facility in the expectation that the trials will be held there....despite all the diplomatically worded assurances that no location has been decided.

I find it stunning that despite no decision being made on a trial location, they convert a building to a trial location and hold a mock-run there....right up to including management of the media pool and yet you argue that the lack of final decision of location is sufficient grounds to decide that its too early to decide whether or not there may or may not be space for human rights groups. Why? Do you think they may be moving to somewhere smaller than the converted Guantanamo facility?

Do you not - at the very least - see that the plan is to hold it in Gitmo, and that the seating numbers for Gitmo must be known? And if thats the case, and they cannot guarantee the human rights observers a place today, then its pretty damn clear that if they don't move from Gitmo as a location that there will be no place for the human rights observers????

Still reads like a flat out "nope, not unless something changes away from the expected plan" answer to me.

jc

Sand

Whatever it is that the US feels is important enough to criticise other nations for on an annual basis for excluding these groups' experts?

They would be there to ensure a fair trial occurs - the geneva convention is the standard by which military trials of pow/enemy combatants/whatever such as these would be considered fair or unfair as far as I can see. The Red Cross is there to ensure the convention is adhered to.

In fact the Red Cross is at, or is supposed to be represented at every military trial of pows. These human rights groups are not represented at every single handbag snatch being tried in cuba as far as I know, nor at every trial in Ireland if many at all. Their presence is nice, but not mandatory because the Red Cross will be there anyway, with a very specific and applicable role.

As has already been pointed out, the Red Cross tend to keep rather closed-mouthed about these things.

Not true - I quoted an article where the Red Cross was criticising the US over the status of the Gitmo prisoners and the fact they were in legal limbo.

You criticise the human rights groups for doing themselves no favours by making a big deal out of this, but what else would you have them do? Wait until the trials start and then complain?

To stick to the facts maybe - Im supposed to trust these people to reach a fair analysis of whats going on - them ranting about being denied access when the only reply they have is - no courtroom, no charges, no known seats, well keep you in mind does not endear them to me to properly carry out their role.

If anything it undermines their findings - if they come out saying an absolute travesty of justice on par with the Stalinist show trials has occurred its going to sound like more sensationalist exaggerating on their part.

They have requested entry. They have received a response which does not grant them entry. They are aware that other groups have been assured entry. Ergo, they have been refused in their eyes. That refusal has been couched in language that makes it non-final, but it is still a refusal, at present, in their eyes. I fully agree that its been so politely and diplomatically worded that it gives the usual wriggling room on which your interpretation is based, but personally I think Amnesty et al are doing a great job by refusing to accept that answer and are reading it for what it is most likely meant as.

How can a refusal be taken out of that statement? You admit yourself that it leaves a lot of room for the US to "go back" on - A refusal is usually defined as NO. As in you will not be given seats.

The reply they got was theres nothing solid yet except for what is mandatory under the convention ( the Red Cross ) and Journalists ( which are defined as some ). Your request will be considered at a later date.

Yeah, theres some interpretations of that involve wriggling and reading between the lines but its not mine.

See - now even you are referring to it as a decision, despite insisting that no decision has been made

In response to your claim I was defending the reply as a good decision - I said I wasnt saying that?

How impossible is it to conceive that the same system could be implemented for the Human Rights groups with as little as one single seat. If that meant one less seat for the journalists, then surely its not an impossible task. Unless there is only one journalist allowed in at a time.

And Id be happy to see such a system that would allow access by these groups, but it has not been claimed in the letter that such a system wasnt in place or asnt planned for.

If anything, the claim that their requests would be bourne in mind would fall into place with a pool system.

Incidentally, you might find this backs up some of what I'm saying. Consider, why would the US build a trial facility on Guantanamo and perform a trial-run trial there, complete with security issues etc. if Guantanamo was not the intended/preferred location for a trial.

From your source....

"We don't want to get ahead of the Defense Department," Col. Hart said. "We have not gotten any official order or directive from the Department of Defense to hold commissions, so it's all premature. In the military, we practice everything. So we did an exercise, so we are ready to get such an order."

Do you not - at the very least - see that the plan is to hold it in Gitmo, and that the seating numbers for Gitmo must be known?

Its certainly very likely if security is their top concern as transportation and holding of the prisoners at another facility possibly in the US proper would be riskier. But as Hart, who ran the trial run your referring to said, no orders have come down from the Defence Department, it was on Harts iniative to practice for it in case it happened. Im not sure if Hart will make the final decision as to where the trial will be held.