Gitmo detainees to get "comissions"

bonkey

So...

was just listening to Donald Rumsfeld on CNN, announcing the military comissions which will be put in place to try Gitmo detainees (or prisoners, or whatever you wish to term them).

The US faces an almost impossible dilemma here, in that they face desperate criticism already, and need to show that their courts - or comissions to be correct - will be fair and just. They must balance that, however, against the presentation of evidence, and the real security threats which will be faced.

There will be situations where the US cannot present evidence openly, and I believe they should have the right to use that evidence. However, once the doors are closed, who is to say that the end decision is fair except those making the decisions.

In this, I think the US have taken the only option they have, and will simply have to weather the criticism. Whether they abuse this condition or not cannot be said - I would hope not, but I have some doubts. As I said though, I think it was the only option realistically available.

What worries me more is the condition that any judgement may be altered by Rumsfeld or the President if they see fit. I cannot see how this condition can be in any way beneficial to the process, and the ramifications of it being used are frightening.

Even here, however, I dont think abuse will feature - I doubt that the power will ever be exercised, but I noticed that Rumsfeld got very flustered when asked what conditions he could see it being used in, and he basically said he had no idea why this was even in the bill, but that the legal minds had declared it a good idea.

Perhaps, what worried me most was a side comment by Rumsfeld while flusteredly trying to dodge the last question. He mentioned that there are no candidates for trial yet, nor even a process in place to determine those candidates.

I dont get this. Whilst spending months drawing up the best plan that they could, they couldnt begin analysis of the individuals so trials could begin ASAP? Furthermore, I dont get this "candidates" term. Is Rumsfeld implying that detainees are not entitled to a trial unless and until the US say so? This, I would have a severe problem with.

jc

Chaos-Engine

I'd be supprised if the US found anyone of their "Terrorists" Not-guilty... The real crime is most ppl don't give a damn.

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Chaos-Engine
I'd be supprised if the US found anyone of their "Terrorists" Not-guilty... The real crime is most ppl don't give a damn.

The real crime is that the very people so up in arms about the treatment of the prisoners held by the US don't give a $hit about the political prisoners that Cuba holds just across the island because it doesn't fit into their nice little political agenda.

I think it would be a travesty if any of those prisoners were released back into the world only to commit or plan more acts of terrorism.

They are not US citizens. They don't have the same rights. The US constitution was written for US citizens. One of the primary purposes of the US government is to protect its citizens. Get over it.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Gargoyle
The US constitution was written for US citizens. One of the primary purposes of the US government is to protect its citizens. Get over it.

erm, might want to go read up your constitution.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

I can't see the bit that says "UNLESS THEY AREN'T AMERICAN!". I believe people are nearly always referred to "the people".

But your certainly broadcasting the general feelings from the US of "If they aren't American then they are sub-human". I guess the 20 million people in the US who aren't American feel much safer.

But then UN human rights is lost on some people too.

Or maybe they shouldn't have any rights because they are the bad guys. Bad guys should never have rights because we always know they are bad. We would never arrest a good guy and if we did, they would always have rights because they are the good guy? right?

Gargoyle

Fair enough Hobbes, perhaps I should clarify. Legally, the US contritution applies to persons who are in this country as citizens OR legal immigrants as a recent US Supreme Court decision confirmed. This, I have no problems with.

However, under laws enacted in 1996, there is a provision for illegal immigrants to be held indefinitely. Prior to that, they were required to be deported within 6 months. Until Sept 11, there has been no need to invoke this option.

The issue is really beside the point as the detainees are held in Cuba...off US soil so that these laws never apply to them at all. I have no problems with this, primarily for the reason that any location they were held in the US would become an instant target and a haven for a media frenzy. Camp X-ray is a far more secure location.

As to whether or not they are guilty or not, please keep in mind they were captured as foreign nationals fightering to aid the Al Queda and or Taliban government. In most of the countries they come from, a person in the opposite position would probably be killed without a trial or imprisoned without a trial and they would almost certainly receive far worse treatment than these guys are getting (they can't even starve themselves to death down there).

Hobbes

(glad to see you took the sarcasm in good fun)

actually I believe the human rights part applies to everyone American citizen illegal or not. I'd be intrested in a linkage where you say there was a high court ruling.

As to whether or not they are guilty or not, please keep in mind they were captured as foreign nationals fightering to aid the Al Queda and or Taliban government.

If they were aiding Al Queda they should be tried as terrorists, if fighting for the Taliban then they should be treated as POW's.

However the trials should be fair and impartial. As it's already been shown some people arrested as terrorists have proven not to have been and were denied rights under the assumption they were already guilty. That I think is wrong.

In most of the countries they come from,...

Ok you can have that, however with that you cannot take the moral high ground. If the US is going to preach that the people detained are evil or would deny rights under the geneva convention they can't go and do it themselves.

bonkey

Originally posted by Gargoyle
As to whether or not they are guilty or not, please keep in mind they were captured as foreign nationals fightering to aid the Al Queda and or Taliban government. In most of the countries they come from, a person in the opposite position would probably be killed without a trial or imprisoned without a trial and they would almost certainly receive far worse treatment than these guys are getting (they can't even starve themselves to death down there).

This is a fair point. However, it reminds me of a comment made by some expert CNN trotted in on Q&A after last night's announcement. What he basically said is that these men were fortunate to be where they were, and to be receiving any formof recourse, In fact, they were lucky there were being held by the Americans because had they been captured by other allied nations they would not have enjoyed such humane treatment.

I found this somewhat amusing, because the "other allied nations" included him specifically mentioning the British and French. The British (and I think the French also) are currently asking the US to release prisoners of their nationality to them, because they dont believe the US is treating them sufficiently fairly or humanely, have gone on record as saying that there are a number of areas they have grave concerns about, and so on.

Interesting how some Americans are billing themseves as more humane than the nations complaining about the policy that the US is currently enforcing on this issue.

jc

Clintons Cat

the other thing to bear in mind is the us has not released the details of how the detainees were brought into detention," battlefield"is a generic term applied to the whole of afganistan.Given that the US was offering local militas $1000 us dollars for every al-quedia member handed over is it beyond the realms of possibility that a few non al quedia foriegners were rounded up by unscrupulous warlords?
What would any body be doing in afganistan if they werent fighting for the taliban? Well war zones tend to attract all sorts of people,from adventurers to writers/freelance journalists to people involved with NGOs that might have stayed behind to deliver humanitarian aid when the official agencies withdrew.