Guantanamo inmates commit suicide

[Zep]

Sure. The prisoner is brought promptly before an "other officer authorized by law" before the decision is even made to send him to Gitmo. Once there, ongoing trials can be read about in this website:

http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/gitmo/

Finish that sentence, please, or be guilty of quoting out of context:

Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release.

Unless you think four years is "reasonable"??

I think the issue here isn’t that the law isn’t being followed, but that you don’t like how it’s being followed.

Almost right - how fast it's being followed as well.

Based on Gitmo, one would certainly be forced to believe that the USA now endorses long-term detention without trial as a matter of government policy. I seem to recall the USA has previously chided other nations for doing exactly that. So sauce for the goose...?

 

[BPSCG]

Finish that sentence, please, or be guilty of quoting out of context:

Anyone arrested or detained on a criminal charge shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorized by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release.

Let's look at the beginning of that sentence, also. These guys are not being held on criminal charges. As such, your cite is completely irrelevant.

Here's a cite that is just as relevant:

'Twas the night before Christmas
And all through the house,
Not a creature was stirring,
Not even a mouse.

Now, if you want to argue that these guys are being held for breaking and entering, or for holding up a liquor store...

 

[DaChew]

That does not asuage my worry that the prisoners are being treated in an inhumane manner.

But you, never the less, concede that the military HAS issued statements that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion? Correct? They HAVE issued statements? Which would be contrary to your claim right?

If you want to claim that the reviews are not happening according to your personal timeline and are not up to your personal standards, that can be dealt with as well. The military HAS issued statements though.

 

[a_unique_person]

But you, never the less, concede that the military HAS issued statements that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion? Correct? They HAVE issued statements? Which would be contrary to your claim right?

They can claim what they want, David Hicks, for one, has been there for about 4 years now, IIRC, with not a trial date in site.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

But you, never the less, concede that the military HAS issued statements that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion? Correct? They HAVE issued statements? Which would be contrary to your claim right?

If you want to claim that the reviews are not happening according to your personal timeline and are not up to your personal standards, that can be dealt with as well. The military HAS issued statements though.

Excuse me, handfuls, picked and chosen few do not represent the majority of the inmates held without charges, and without a trial in sight.

 

[DaChew]

They can claim what they want, David Hicks, for one, has been there for about 4 years now, IIRC, with not a trial date in site.

And this has something to do with the claim that the military has NOT issued any statements how?

By the way: Nonsense concerning David Hicks.
First, you'll recall that Australia and the U.S. agreed that military tribunals were the proper way to deal with detainees who were Australian citizens.
Second, you'll also recall that Hicks military trial (among others) was postponed until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the legality of the military tribunals.
Third, You'll again recall that the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments regarding that issue this passed March and a decision is pending.

David Hicks IS being represented in the justice system. That there is a challenge to the legality of the military tribunals is part of the way the wheels of justice turn. That his military trial is not coming about according to your personal timeline is, well, a bummer to be sure.

Further, if you don't actually recall any of the above (which I'm sure you do considering how interested you are in the subject) I invite you to do some homework on the site link I previously provided.

 

[DaChew]

Excuse me, handfuls, picked and chosen few do not represent the majority of the inmates held without charges, and without a trial in sight.

You are excused. What does that have to do with your claim that "the military has issued no statements that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion."

I showed that they have and asked you if you concede that they have which renders your claim that they hadn't false. Again, if you want to claim that the reviews are not happening according to your personal timeline and are not up to your personal standards, that can be dealt with as well. The military HAS issued statements though.

 

[a_unique_person]

And this has something to do with the claim that the military has NOT issued any statements how?

By the way: Nonsense concerning David Hicks.
First, you'll recall that Australia and the U.S. agreed that military tribunals were the proper way to deal with detainees who were Australian citizens.
Second, you'll also recall that Hicks military trial (among others) was postponed until the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on the legality of the military tribunals.
Third, You'll again recall that the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments regarding that issue this passed March and a decision is pending.

David Hicks IS being represented in the justice system. That there is a challenge to the legality of the military tribunals is part of the way the wheels of justice turn. That his military trial is not coming about according to your personal timeline is, well, a bummer to be sure.

Further, if you don't actually recall any of the above (which I'm sure you do considering how interested you are in the subject) I invite you to do some homework on the site link I previously provided.

The reason it is delayed is that the whole process is built on a fraud, that Guantanamo is not US soil and hence not subject to US laws, at which a US military tribunal will carry out a trial that it's own prosecutors disowned.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

You are excused. What does that have to do with your claim that "the military has issued no statements that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion."

I showed that they have and asked you if you concede that they have which renders your claim that they hadn't false. Again, if you want to claim that the reviews are not happening according to your personal timeline and are not up to your personal standards, that can be dealt with as well. The military HAS issued statements though.

My personnal standard? How about standards in line with the USCMJ and the Constitution? In what way is detetaining inmates indefinately, and without charges, just?

 

[DaChew]

The reason it is delayed is that the whole process is built on a fraud, that Guantanamo is not US soil and hence not subject to US laws, at which a US military tribunal will carry out a trial that it's own prosecutors disowned.

And this has something to do with the claim that the military has NOT issued any statements how?

The reason it is delayed

Ah, there we go. Now the trials are "delayed".

fraud

Evidence?

Guantanamo is not US soil

Of course it is.

not subject to US laws

The U.S. Supreme Court is not U.S. law?

 

[a_unique_person]

And this has something to do with the claim that the military has NOT issued any statements how?


Ah, there we go. Now the trials are "delayed".


Evidence?


Of course it is.

Not according to Bush and Co.

 

[DaChew]

My personnal standard? How about standards in line with the USCMJ and the Constitution? In what way is detetaining inmates indefinately, and without charges, just?

Since you continue to evade the question as to whether you concede that "the military HAS issued statements that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion." rendering your claim false, I'm at a loss as to why I should answer this question.

However, I refer you to the post above in response to AUP as to the current situation regarding the military trials.

 

[a_unique_person]

Since you continue to evade the question as to whether you concede that "the military HAS issued statements that the gitmo inmates are being tried under military justice in a timely fashion." rendering your claim false, I'm at a loss as to why I should answer this question.

However, I refer you to the post above in response to AUP as to the current situation regarding the military trials.

The reason it is delayed is the illegality of the trials. Did you read my previous link, the US's own prosecutors walked out on the process. Justice delayed is justice denied. If they cannot assert the process is legal, they should just acknowledge, as their prosectors did, that it is illegal.

 

[DaChew]

The reason it is delayed is the illegality of the trials. Did you read my previous link, the US's own prosecutors walked out on the process. Justice delayed is justice denied. If they cannot assert the process is legal, they should just acknowledge, as their prosectors did, that it is illegal.

The prosecuters don't decide the law. The Supreme Court will decide the issue. As it is in the process of doing right now. As I showed you. Justice is not being delayed. Justice is being acted upon right now. As I showed you.

Who is this "they" that you refer to who should be deciding this legality? Certainly you refer to the U.S. Supreme Court and NOT anyone else. They, of course, have jurisdiction over this matter. Which, as I have shown you, they are working on right now.

 

[Ziggurat]

Some of them may not be the bad guys. Until they are put on trial we don't know.

I didn't see anyone address this claim, which I suspect is really at the heart of your complaint, so let me do so.

Is a trial the only way to determine facts? No, it simply is not. In fact, trials aren't even the only way to ensure that the person in question has a chance to defend themselves either. Trials are ONE particular method of doing so, but they are NOT the only method. They are only special because they are constitutionally required for criminal cases, but these aren't criminal cases.

So your complaint really boils down to you being ignorant of what method they DO use to determine the facts surrounding each detainee. Your preference for a particular method is irrelevant, and has no basis in law.

 

[Ziggurat]

In what way is detetaining inmates indefinately, and without charges, just?

In what way is it unjust? That is STANDARD treatment for prisoners of war, even under the Geneva conventions. You keep ignoring that point, as if it didn't exist, but it does. And it undermines your entire argument.

 

[DaChew]

In what way is it unjust? That is STANDARD treatment for prisoners of war, even under the Geneva conventions. You keep ignoring that point, as if it didn't exist, but it does. And it undermines your entire argument.

Agree. And further, I'm not aware of any time when an enemy combatant was captured from the battlefield and charged with crimes and tried. This idea would be entirely unprecedented. Enemy combatants have always been held until hostilities end or their release negotiated.

 

[Mycroft]

Based on Gitmo, one would certainly be forced to believe that the USA now endorses long-term detention without trial as a matter of government policy. I seem to recall the USA has previously chided other nations for doing exactly that. So sauce for the goose...?

Look, I've posted links showing the trials these people are having. Can you lay that to rest now?

 

[Bacchanal]

I realize I am somewhat late to the thread, but I believe that new evidence which has surfaced is relevant to the arguments which have been presented here. I do not have enough posts to make links, but copying and pasting the following to the address bar of a browser should suffice: news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5070514.stm

The relevant text:

BBC News said:
Mark Denbeaux, who represents some of the foreign detainees said the man [who was one of the three who committed suicide] was among 141 prisoners due to be released.
[...]
The Pentagon named the prisoner who had been recommended for transfer as 30-year-old Saudi Arabian Mani Shaman Turki al-Habardi Al-Utaybi.
[...]
"These people are told they'll be 50 by the time they get out, that they have no hope of getting out. They've been denied a hearing, they have no chance to be released," he [Denbeaux] said.
[...]
Utaybi had been declared a "safe person, free to be released" but the US needed a country to send him to, Professor Denbeaux said.

"His despair was great enough and in his ignorance he went and killed himself," he said.

I am quoting these portions selectively only due to relevance, not due to an attempt to mischaracterize the issue nor the intent of the article (and such an attempt would be transparent anyway, as the location of the full text of the article has been provided).

Given the context of this new information, do those in this thread who agree with the position stated by those in the original article (i.e. "This is an act of asymmetrical warfare"), or those who have stated a position of (roughly) "good riddance" still maintain their position? If so, why?

 

[The Painter]

Geopolitical Review has noticed an AP story reporting that a Taliban commander who'd been interned at Guantanamo, and then released, returned to Afghanistan where he has been killed in action against Afghan government forces.

We let him go and then he goes right back to the fight.

So much for letting them go.